DreamHost is just as clueless about BitTorrent as 1and1 -- UPDATED

Be sure to check out Update 4, below: DreamHost is telling at least some of their customers that running BitTorrent trackers is OK, provided they don't use buggy software and don't infringe copyright. That's a really, really reasonable position -- I hope they update their Terms of Service to match it soon.

Avery sez, "I noticed that the super-popular web host DreamHost has the same policy against BitTorrent as 1and1. I contacted them with what might have been a pointed question about this, and a customer service person gave a response more friendly than 1and1 but with the same attitude"

We have no problems with people uploading home videos and distributing them, or any other content which they have a legal copyright to distribute. The problem is with Bittorrent/other torrent software buts incredible load on servers, and with the amount of bandwidth we have, can put an incredible strain on the bandwidth as well. Please just use regular old HTTP to distribute files from our servers.

In short, we would shut down the torrent software, but not your overall site.

Come again? BitTorrent, which uses less bandwidth than http, is banned because it uses too much bandwidth. Therefore, DreamHost customers wishing to distribute large files should use http, which uses more bandwidth. To save bandwidth. [boggles]

The hosting company is Dreamhost. The contact us page is here. You can record a message for them at +1.213.947.1032. Link to comparably clueless letter from 1and1

Update: Michael forwards on this email from Jeff at Dreamhost:

The reasoning for not allowing BitTorrent-related processes/scripts/etc. is largely administrative:

There is the bandwidth issue - we don't have a way to reliably track bandwidth usage associated with BitTorrent. It's possible we could develop one in the future, but it's not something we're interested in putting a lot of development time behind.

There's also an issue of stability - we generally don't allow persistent processes because they have a tendency to run out of control, consume large amounts of CPU/memory, and cause problems. This isn't really something we can debate as we've seen it ourselves many times in the past, and our admins have to deal with the ramifications.

Basically, our lack of support is largely administrative in nature, and is a policy based on practicality from our point of view. We can't be all things to all people, and anything that distracts us from our main focus of providing solid web site hosting has to be worth it. Given the problems we've seen with BitTorrent server and tracker implementations thus far, at this point we've decided that it's not something we're interested in allowing on our servers.

Like anything, this is a decision we may reconsider in the future based on customer demand.

So there's still this random stuff about bandwidth. BitTorrent clearly, unequivocally uses less bandwidth to serve popular files than http, and yet DreamHost advises using http as an alternative to BitTorrent to offset the "administrative" problems associated with BitTorrent, including excessive bandwidth usage. Except that they've never measured bandwidth usage associated with BitTorrent. This sounds like a gigantic red herring to me.

As to whether BT servers have memory leaks and are CPU hogs, it's interesting if true (unquestionably some BT servers have memory leaks and are CPU hogs, but that doesn't mean that all BT servers share this problem). I wonder if this is applied evenly to all server-side apps that DreamHost's customers might run.

It's heartening to hear that DreamHost is willing to reconsider this based on customer demand. I think that a much more reasonable compromise would be to test some BitTorrent trackers/servers and publish a list of known-good BT servers and known-leaky ones, so that users don't inadvertently install buggy software.

Update 2: To forestall more email on these lines: yes, I understand that he's saying that he can't measure BitTorrent traffic so he can't bill for it, but that's a pretty lame excuse -- do they ban all non-http/ftp protocols (and, presumably, all http/ftp traffic on non-standard ports) because they can only measure some specific, enumerated protocols? And it doesn't answer the question: if the overall concern is conserving bandwidth, then why ban BitTorrent, a major conserver of bandwidth?

Update 3 Chris sez, "If could attempt to translate Jeff @ Dreamhosts's response and clarify the bandwidth issue, I've been a Sr. Engineering type in the hosting industry for 10 years at one of the largest hosters. There is no good reason a host can't allow BT on dedicated boxes. If they filter any ports at the router (doubtful, too much $$ to be made in firewalls) then BT certainly shouldn't be one of them. On shared server, however, the hosts could rely on the web server logs (and ftp logs) to track bandwidth usage. Many have better IP based tracking via NetFlow or the like, but I suspect dreamhost watches the logs. So, they have two problems. They have to write some code to track the BT transfer stats from the logs estimating bytes per request (eww), and integrate it into the backend systems. They also have to run the BT tracker on the web server and hosters hate running extra stuff on the boxes. They might have hundreds of other sites on the box, which makes for some interesting security and management problems with the trackers. So they throw up their hands. Not to mention explaining how BT works to the marketing and clueless execs and getting engineering time on the schedule to work this stuff out... best to find a nimble smaller host."

Update 4: Seth, a Dreamhost customer, has been told that it's OK for him to go on running BitTorrent on his DreamHost account:

Our current Terms of Service do completely forbid the use of any BitTorrent software on our servers and that policy was put into place to preserve our network while we consider the available options to provide legitimate BitTorrent seeding and tracking services to our customers. We recognize that it is a very useful tool for anyone that wants to distribute large files. We are aware of how BitTorrent works and we use it ourselves regularly. We would like to provide an easy way for users in your situation to provide BitTorrent seeds of files and are investigating that currently.

Having said all of this, it sounds like what you have been doing with BlogTorrent is acceptable. Our policy on BitTorrent one is very general and was intended as a stop-gap measure against a few people who were abusing our good faith and server resources. As we do not currently provide a BitTorrent service, distributing a large file like you have done should be fine as long as it doesn't consume an inordinate amount of server resources. You are of course still bound by all applicable laws.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. I hope they update their ToS soon!