Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have two computers on two different islands (yes we have small islands here), my friend's and mine. So, I want to share my movies with him.

The problem here is that even if I host the files on my PC and give him a link to download them to his computer, the internet speed here is extremely slow (like 70 kbps). So I was wondering is there a way around in a faster speed. Like we get hell fast inside our house because its shared over our LAN network.

Is there any work around? I have seen some people talking about VPN and things but is it fast?

Both of us use Windows with ADSL connections.

share|improve this question
    
What kind of internet connection are both of you using? (Like ADSL, Asymmetric DSL, often has a quite limited upload speed. –  Arjan Sep 21 '13 at 12:03
    
@Richie What about a service like mailbigfile.com –  Simon Sep 21 '13 at 12:15
    
@Arjan Sorry for the late reply. We are both using ADSL connection. –  Richie Sep 21 '13 at 13:27
    
@Simon I don't think its a good idea because it will take more time than other solutions, to upload from my side and again download it from the other side. –  Richie Sep 21 '13 at 13:29
    
@Richie Fine. I hope you find a suitable solution. –  Simon Sep 21 '13 at 13:34

5 Answers 5

up vote 3 down vote accepted

VPN is simply emulating a LAN over the Internet, so the speed is still limited by your internet speed. You would have to create a physical (wired or wireless) network between the two islands, which seems quite difficult to me.

share|improve this answer
    
I know right, its hell hard. Anyways, thank you. I really appreciate your help :) –  Richie Sep 21 '13 at 11:57
    
Two islands? Sounds like the perfect excuse to set up a network of directional wifi antennas... I used to get my Internet service through one of those, the signal travelled over 30 miles of countryside to my village without issue. You might even be able to achieve usable speeds with cantennas and off-the-shelf parts! –  Christopher Woods May 29 at 11:47

I suggest you copy it onto a USB and just mail it over.

share|improve this answer
    
Actually, with all the over-engineering going around here, this seems like a simple way to do it, albeit slow. –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 22 '13 at 10:33
    
@DoktoroReichard high-latency, but high-bandwidth :) –  Blacklight Shining Sep 23 '13 at 2:35

The bandwidth between you and your friend is limited by your friends download speed and your upload speed. Typically, upload speed is much lower, so your upload speed is the limit of the connection.

There is no way around it. Period.

However, note that when you give your friend some sort of link to your file, you're exposing your computer to the net. FTP, SSH, rsync, doesn't matter - you're opening a port for all the bots that internet has to offer :)

IMHO, the best way to share a file with someone would be by using Bittorent Sync:

http://labs.bittorrent.com/experiments/sync.html

It will require some effort to set it up, but then it works like a charm.

Here's some explanation on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V5BKtbRdwDU#t=3999

share|improve this answer
1  
Can you try and give an explanation on how Bittorent Sync works. Link answers may eventually lose their information because the page may change, and it is slightly better than to force the users that see this to figure out for themselves if the program is suited for them. –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 21 '13 at 14:14
    
@doktoro-reichard Basically it's a P2P synchronization of a folder. –  kliteyn Sep 22 '13 at 8:25
    
I added another link (assuming youtube won't go down any time soon) –  kliteyn Sep 22 '13 at 8:36
    
@kliteyn You're also assuming Google won't take down that one specific video… –  Blacklight Shining Sep 23 '13 at 2:36
    
@blacklight-shining Yes, I do :) –  kliteyn Sep 23 '13 at 10:47

There might be a workaround, but that would depend on specifics. Quality of signal is lost in relation to distance.

Assuming you used Dropbox to transfer files, and both you and your friend were 1.000 Km of their main servers, then, the total distance run by your data would be 2.000 Km. That would mean that data would be sent slowly and received slowly.

If you can shorten that distance to the bare minimum, by using a local server (or a direct connection), then that might increase your speed, assuming it isn't low from start (i.e. if in a speedtest between the two islands, you got low speeds).

However, keep this as a rule of thumb, and not as a general rule or an absolute rule, because of what I try to explain next.


xstnc pointed out to me that this reasoning is somewhat misleading, due to the concept of Round-trip delay time (RDT) being at work. To simplify things a lot, let's assume that you're trying to transfer files using a stream-like connection. According to Beej's Guide to Network Programming:

Stream sockets are reliable two-way connected communication streams. If you output two items into the socket in the order "1, 2", they will arrive in the order "1, 2" at the opposite end. They will also be error-free. I'm so certain, in fact, they will be error-free, that I'm just going to put my fingers in my ears and chant la la la la if anyone tries to claim otherwise.

How do stream sockets achieve this high level of data transmission quality? They use a protocol called "The Transmission Control Protocol", otherwise known as "TCP" (see RFC 793 for extremely detailed info on TCP.) TCP makes sure your data arrives sequentially and error-free.

That quality has a price though. The following is referring to the second protocol used commonly on data transfer called UDP.

Why would you use an unreliable underlying protocol? Two reasons: speed and speed. It's way faster to fire-and-forget than it is to keep track of what has arrived safely and make sure it's in order and all that. If you're sending chat messages, TCP is great; if you're sending 40 positional updates per second of the players in the world, maybe it doesn't matter so much if one or two get dropped, and UDP is a good choice.

In TCP, you essentially send a neat packet of data to the other user. Then you expect him to send you a piece of information confirming that he got that packet. And so forth until the file has been received. This obviously is an incredibly slow process, that suffers from the problem of round-trip delay time (RDP).

RDP is, in a nutshell, the propagation times between the two points of a signal. In the context of computer networks, the signal is generally a data packet, and the RTD is also known as the ping time.

So, it's this delay, and not distance in itself, that is responsible for the quality of signal you get while transferring files. UDP can also suffer from the same problem, but it is offset by the sending of countless packages without regard to order or error checking, as explained in the last quote.


As Arjan pointed out, the speed your ISP delivers is a significant factor. Ultimately, your friend can't go over it's download speed and you can't go over your upload speed. Since most Internet connections tend to favor downloading to uploading (ADSL type networks), the bottleneck is on the upload speed.

share|improve this answer
    
I truly doubt the distance has any real effect compared to other factors, most notably the upload limit as set by the Internet Service Provider. –  Arjan Sep 21 '13 at 12:01
    
It actually has. I live in a country that in recent years has developed their Internet connections quite well and I would like to say the rest of the work hasn't kept up. Putting personal aspects behind, distance has it's problems. Connections between Europe and North America, for instance, are made using underseas optic fiber cables. Few years back, the Internet grounded to a relative stop, as one such cable was cut in the Indian Ocean. –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 21 '13 at 12:58
    
Still, distance isn't a real issue. What CAN be an issue, is the RTD over a long pysical connection. With more hops, and longer geographical distances, you pay in higher RTD. RTD then again affects the possible transfer speed in terms of window size on the packages. Your comment is just misleading and uncorrect. -1 sorry.. –  xstnc Sep 21 '13 at 19:53
    
@xstnc Don't be, humans only learn by trying and failing. If anything, your comment helps me improve something I knew, but badly (I'm not a wizard on networking). I assume when you're referring to RTD you're referring to this. I think I can add this information to my answer. However... this is mostly true on TCP connections, UDP connections may not suffer from this (they may suffer from other things such as packet loss). –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 21 '13 at 21:08
    
@DoktoroReichard That's one way of looking at it! Kudos for beeing optimistic :) And yes, window size is in regards to the TCP packet. Transfering files through UDP is not reccomended.. atleast not when you don't controll all the hops on the connection aswell as the endpoints! More on TCP and window size + RTD –  xstnc Sep 23 '13 at 10:30

You have to download a software (Name of software is KGB_Archiver

By using this software You can compress your file 1GB into 10 Mb (like any video). and you have to also install same software on your friends Desktop for decompress the same file. You can enjoy to transfer large file.

share|improve this answer
    
Ok, now this is getting interesting. So you are saying that, when the files are compressed, transferred and then finally decompressed, the quality will be the same and all? I am going to try this and will let you know if it is good enough. Thank you for the suggestion :) –  Richie Sep 21 '13 at 12:07
1  
I doubt KGB_Archiver (or any archiver, by that matter) can achieve 0.01% ratios, particularly on video files, that are heavily compressed as is. Not to mention it uses a PAQ6 algorithm, so, at incredibly high compression settings, you can take the most of a day to compress the file (therefore belittling the goal of the OP, that is to save time). –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 21 '13 at 12:54
    
I appreaciate you It will take time. But Quatity Will not loss –  Praveen Gangwar Sep 21 '13 at 13:04
2  
You're missing the point. You won't get anywhere near those kinds of compression ratios in a short amount of time. Given a day (that is 24 hours), the most a compressor could do is to convert 1GB of video to 0.950GB. I give you this link to MaximumCompression and particularly this. If you note, PAQ algorithms come at top, but they waste almost 7 hours (in perfect conditions) compressing the files to 20% their size. And this isn't just video files. These ones are near uncompress-able. –  Doktoro Reichard Sep 21 '13 at 13:12
    
@PraveenGangwar Well, I checked it, it does work on compression, but the problem is that it takes the same time to compress, we can even download the whole movie on that amount of time >.< –  Richie Sep 21 '13 at 13:16

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.