# Megaupload, Rapidshare, and Torrents?



## Texas Coyote (Jul 7, 2009)

I am desperately trying to find a decent way to file share. Megaupload and Rapidshare have problems with either too slow, riddled with viruses, or something other than what it says it is. I haven't messed with the torrents yet because I don't know that much about it. Can someone please help me out here and give me some words of wisdom? Help me find a quality and safe free file sharing?


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

how many files, how often and how big, how many people you need to share with?
If your numbers are small a FTP or web host would be the way to share files.


----------



## Kari (Mar 24, 2008)

Texas Coyote said:


> I am desperately trying to find a decent way to file share. Megaupload and Rapidshare have problems with either too slow, riddled with viruses, or something other than what it says it is. I haven't messed with the torrents yet because I don't know that much about it. Can someone please help me out here and give me some words of wisdom? Help me find a quality and safe free file sharing?


Torrents is the most common method today, lots of info on Google about how to use Torrents.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

torrents are only good if you want to distribute either large files or files to LOTS of people. FTP is still very common. people do it from web pages all the time and dont know they are doing it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Texas Coyote said:


> I am desperately trying to find a decent way to file share. Megaupload and Rapidshare have problems with either too slow, riddled with viruses, or something other than what it says it is.


It sounds like you're looking to obtain files rather than share your own files. When you download files from an untrusted source there's always a risk that your machine will be attacked, since you are typically running a downloaded executable installation program that gives permission to do virtually anything to your computer. That will be true regardless of the file source or file sharing protocol.

Safe file sharing lore can be involved, but it's important to take some sort of precaution. If you wish to partake in promiscuous file sharing, I suggest that you test questionable files in a safe virtual environment where any viruses or malware can be contained. A good product to do that with is VirtualBox.

http://www.virtualbox.org/

VirtualBox is free (open source) and is platform independent.

With torrent indexes, such as thepiratebay.org, there is also feedback. If you see enough good feedback then you might not need VirtalBox, while negative reviews should make you all the more suspicious. Let caution with good sense be your guide.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It sounds like you're looking to obtain files rather than share your own files. When you download files from an unverified source there's always a risk that your machine will be attacked, since you are typically running a downloaded executable installation program that gives permission to do virtually anything to your computer. That will be true regardless of the file source or file sharing protocol.
> 
> Safe file sharing lore can be involved, but it's important to take some sort of precaution. If you wish to partake in promiscuous file sharing, I suggest that you test questionable files in a safe virtual environment where any viruses or malware can be contained. A good product to do that with is VirtualBox.
> 
> ...


Not to be picky, Nevada, but there are flaws with virtualization; (1) CPU speed requirements: I tried running DSL (---- Small LINUX) in a virtual machine using virtualbox, and the CPU under windows would flat-line at 100% usage (this was a 2.4GHZ CPU, 1GB of RAM, and a 120GB HDD with no maleware of any kind) every time the virtual machine would do ANYTHING; (2) if the virus can spread itself over LAN networks, then it can use the "virtualbox 1Gb\s" virtual ethernet connection to the host OS to spread that way. I don't recommend virtualization for anybody unless they're planning on using it on (retired\recycled) server hardware.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Not to be picky, Nevada, but there are flaws with virtualization; (1) CPU speed requirements: I tried running DSL (---- Small LINUX) in a virtual machine using virtualbox, and the CPU under windows would flat-line at 100% usage (this was a 2.4GHZ CPU, 1GB of RAM, and a 120GB HDD with no maleware of any kind) every time the virtual machine would do ANYTHING; (2) if the virus can spread itself over LAN networks, then it can use the "virtualbox 1Gb\s" virtual ethernet connection to the host OS to spread that way. I don't recommend virtualization for anybody unless they're planning on using it on (retired\recycled) server hardware.


As I said, file sharing lore can be involved. Nothing is foolproof, since a virus can be written to defeat any protection, but it's better than him doing nothing at all. I suspect that anyone who is promiscuous in obtaining files from untrusted sources is going to get bit sooner or later.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Not to be picky, Nevada, but there are flaws with virtualization; (1) CPU speed requirements: I tried running DSL (---- Small LINUX) in a virtual machine using virtualbox, and the CPU under windows would flat-line at 100% usage (this was a 2.4GHZ CPU, 1GB of RAM, and a 120GB HDD with no maleware of any kind) every time the virtual machine would do ANYTHING; (2) if the virus can spread itself over LAN networks, then it can use the "virtualbox 1Gb\s" virtual ethernet connection to the host OS to spread that way. I don't recommend virtualization for anybody unless they're planning on using it on (retired\recycled) server hardware.


You cant run VM with only 1 gb of ram. The base OS will eat most of that. Virtualbox needs memory to run as well on top of the guest OS. You also have to deal with disk I/O, If you really want to run virtuals use ESXI, that way your host OS is real small and most of the memory goes to the guest.



I have a 2ghz P4 with 3gb of ram running 3 virtuals and see no slow downs untill I get to 4 virtual active and doing something.

I have close to 200 virtual machine running at work
Our typical server cluster 3 servers with 4 quad core CPU and 256GB of ram and several Terabytes of disk will run close to 50 virtual on a cluster.


----------



## Kari (Mar 24, 2008)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Not to be picky, Nevada, but there are flaws with virtualization; (1) CPU speed requirements: I tried running DSL (---- Small LINUX) in a virtual machine using virtualbox, and the CPU under windows would flat-line at 100% usage (this was a 2.4GHZ CPU, 1GB of RAM, and a 120GB HDD with no maleware of any kind) every time the virtual machine would do ANYTHING; (2) if the virus can spread itself over LAN networks, then it can use the "virtualbox 1Gb\s" virtual ethernet connection to the host OS to spread that way. I don't recommend virtualization for anybody unless they're planning on using it on (retired\recycled) server hardware.


I disagree, virtualization is a great method of utilizing today's more powerful pc's. At my day job (and for my own private consulting clients) we make extensive use of virtualization. 

In my day job, the amount of hardware I would require would be staggering for testing many various Windows XP/Windows 2003 Server and now the upcoming Windows 7 configurations. We also have quite a few Linux/Unix vmware images running. Off the top of my head (as I am not at work) I can easily list at least 20 separate VMware images I use on a daily/weekly basis. 

We also have a Win 2008 file server running the operating system and file storage on a vmware platform. This image is 24/7 and averages 120 GB of file storage/transfers/backups per week with only 256 MB of memory and less then 20% host peak CPU usage. In 3 years (some previous with Win 2003) the uptime has been great and the only reboots is when certain Windows updates are done and when the server was physically moved a few times.

As for the virus/malware fears, they exist as readily in a virtualized or standalone desktop/server environment. Any pc or server on the network has to follow the same strict and mandated security requirements.


----------



## Kari (Mar 24, 2008)

Gary in ohio said:


> I have close to 200 virtual machine running at work
> Our typical server cluster 3 servers with 4 quad core CPU and 256GB of ram and several Terabytes of disk will run close to 50 virtual on a cluster.


Reads the above and pauses to wipe the drool from his chin....


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

If you hoist the jolly roger, and put on your ol eye patch, you takes your risks. I left my pirate days behind me, the risks outweighed the rewards. Near the end, most of the rewards were misnamed garbage. And there's always the capitalistas, who if they catch you, will keelhaul you.

If I had huge files I wanted to send, I'd ftp them from someone else's wireless access, such as our local libraries very fat pipe. (Last month I d/l'ed windows 7, 3 something gigs, in an hour and a half, as well my usual downloading)


----------



## Kari (Mar 24, 2008)

texican said:


> If you hoist the jolly roger, and put on your ol eye patch, you takes your risks. I left my pirate days behind me, the risks outweighed the rewards. Near the end, most of the rewards were misnamed garbage. And there's always the capitalistas, who if they catch you, will keelhaul you.


We, like many companies distribute some (legal) software via torrent and have found it is a very effective method.

I personally use torrents to download legal files such as software programs, Indie music, Linux distros and documents etc. However I am extremely careful and sandbox these files until I can run a MD5sum (if they have sig available) virus scan them and I am assured that they are clean.


----------

