 
tp0d
yabbazooie
Premium
join:2001-02-13
Carnegie, PA
clubs: | hrm only a matter of time until this client is blacklisted or just ignored altogether.. definetly goes against the sharing scheme. i`ll stick with azureus, thanks. | |
|
 | 
Subaru
1-3-2-4
Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT
clubs: | Re: hrm said by tp0d  i`ll stick with azureus, thanks.
[/BQUOTE :same | |
|
| |
| yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| I don't think you understand what it does. It seems that it prefers to communicate with peers that are uploading faster to you which in turn makes the downloads faster. It will not send as much data to the slower peers so they are encouraged to upload faster.
I'm not sure how azereus chooses peers right now so I can't compare it to that. I tried the software for one torrent and I didn't notice that it was extremely fast or anything. I got 200+ KB/sec though which was pretty good for a torrent with a fairly small amount of seeders. | |
|
| | 
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
edit:
January 3rd, @04:33PM
| Re: hrm It's interesting. But why are many people assuming that it's bad for the swarm?
Does it just give priority to faster peers or does it actually ignore slow peers completely and waste upload bandwidth waiting for faster peers? | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: hrm said by peter_m :It's interesting. But why are many people assuming that it's bad for the swarm? Because it's being reported that way and they don't know enough, or are too lazy to actually look into it.
said by peter_m :Does it just give priority to faster peers or does it actually ignore slow peers completely and waste upload bandwidth waiting for faster peers? It gives priority to faster peers, as does every other Bittorrent client, and it doesn't in it's current implementation snub slow clients if there is extra capacity.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|
| |
|
| compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Looks like it is designed to punish those who slow uploads One way to solve this is by designing a client that hides the users IP addresses. I never quite understood why my IP needs to be seen or is shown to other users. | |
|
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Looks like it is designed to punish those who slow uploads said by compton :One way to solve this is by designing a client that hides the users IP addresses. I never quite understood why my IP needs to be seen or is shown to other users. Hiding it in the client doesn't really help - you can still see the destination IP address of any packet sent from your computer. | |
|
| | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| Because then the internet wouldn't work at all. They don't have to have the IP address visible in the program but you can't hide an originating IP address with TCP data transfers. Just typing netstat in a command prompt you can find out the IP address you are connected to. | |
|
| | ElJay
join:2004-03-17
South Portland, ME | How would that work in a peer-to-peer system like BitTorrent? Beyond the tracker system, all of the data is shared directly between the client computers and to make that happen you obviously need to know the IP address(es) to connect to. | |
|
| 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
edit:
January 3rd, @10:21AM
| It's also designed to punish those with smaller upload pipes. Not everyone has 1+ MBPS up. | |
|
| | ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| Re: Looks like it is designed to punish those who slow uploads said by Morac :It's also designed to punish those with smaller upload pipes. Not everyone has 1+ MBPS up.
I agree, if had more upload bandwidth, I would share more of it. I am not about to give up 75% of my upload speed. More than me using internet in my household, plus I dont like high ping times for gaming. | |
|
| | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | My upload is about 85KB/s max and I usually set my upload to be 60KB. Browsing the web is unaffected. The remaining 25KB/s is enough for that. | |
|
| | |
nekote
join:2000-12-16
Hopkinton, MA
edit:
January 3rd, @10:28AM
| Maximizing bandwidth utilization? Doesn't this have the effect of making maximum use of available bandwidth - of course driving utilization towards an undesirable 100% ?
OTOH, the sooner the data transfer is completed, the sooner other data transfer request can be serviced? Unfortunately (?), potentially additional requests from those who have already (just) benefited from the quicker download?
The rich get richer, so to speak?
--
Government is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master - George Washington
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms of government. - Winston Churchill | |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| How does this help the downloader? The client rewards other clients that upload to you faster by unchoking them first. That doesn't necessarily mean that those clients will unchoke you first so you might not see any faster download speeds unless the other clients are also running BitTyrant and you are uploading faster than anyone else in the swarm.
If everyone is running BitTyrant than the people who upload the fastest will download the fastest. The rest will have to wait for the faster ones to finish. If those people seed this may speed things up overall, but if they don't seed then people with slow upload speeds will be out of luck. You'll see cases where instead of people uploading to 4 people at 10 kbps, they'll set up to upload to 2 people at 20 kbps or 1 person at 40 kbps to get better download priority.
An interesting thing about this client is that if there are multiple people in a swarm running this client who happen to have smaller upload pipes than the other non-BitTyrant client users, than the BitTyrant clients will not upload to each other since their ratios will be too low.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | hmm doesn't work well with tor | |
|
| |
| 
click_310
Eat my shorts
join:2002-12-06
Savannah, GA
| said by brianiscool :doesn't work well with tor
So thats why the ToR network was slow earlier, you were choking it with P2P traffic. 
--
(757) 644-3863 | |
|
raisch
Premium
join:2006-11-30
West Newton, MA | A Commons(sic) Problem "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." - Aristotle | |
|
| JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| Re: A Commons(sic) Problem I am not sure it is a problem of the commons. That refers to private overuse of a common resource. Here, we want the common resource (bandwidth) to be used to the maximum extent. It is just a question of "fairness" (whatever that is), and efficiency. You don't want people who never upload to be able to download, but we all are in situations where we have not uploaded to a particular area, and so might never be able to download. We depend on the generosity of others. | |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | GAG I guess i have to find out what "Choke" means in the overall scheme of torrenting. I am pretty sure i know how it works in general but this is a new term for me.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal | |
|
| |
pkarlos_76
join:2004-08-24
Edmonton, AB | Leech Clients not welcome I will be finding a way to automate the banning of all BitTyrant clients in my swarms, I already banned 2 of them that were leeching without uploading anything to me. | |
|
| yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Re: Leech Clients not welcome It's not a leech client, read it. If you manage a tracker you should understand the BT protocol and from what I can tell this doesn't leech any more than any other client does. | |
|
| |
pkarlos_76
join:2004-08-24
Edmonton, AB
| Re: Leech Clients not welcome said by yabos :It's not a leech client, read it. If you manage a tracker you should understand the BT protocol and from what I can tell this doesn't leech any more than any other client does. No but it rewards those with faster uploads, therefore affecting the neutrality of the system, in return those that download it faster will most likely not remain to share their download with those with slower uploads thus impacting the speed of the swarm. Now if the ratio was tracked by trackers over a period of time rather then the most common individual torrent basis that would be acceptable, but that bring other cons to BT to it. | |
|
| |
| |
SmD Frylock
join:2001-08-09
Farrell, PA
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
January 3rd, @01:40PM
| sounds like Emule/Edonkey Emule has a system like this, and it basically slows everything down in the name of fair sharing. It takes absolutely forever to start downloads, since you're stuck in a vicious "chicken and egg" circle of "I can't upload anything to download" and "I can't download anything to upload".
As it stands, Bittorrent is how the Edonkey protocol used to be before ratio systems were added to the clients; Fast. After Edonkey started adding anti-leech systems to the clients, the speed went into the toilet, and the queues started skyrocketing.
I suspect that if this catches on, you can kiss 300kb's downloads goodbye.
--
Frankly, I no longer fear Hell anymore, because I know Satan will just put me in my old office and proceed to unleash an unending barrage of stupidity towards me. | |
|
| 
aelfwyne
join:2004-01-28
Beaumont, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: sounds like Emule/Edonkey Hmm.... I really don't have a problem with eMule myself. Yeah, you gotta let it run for a bit before the downloads start, but everything comes through. It works MUCH better than torrents for any files that are less than popular, because it is specifically NOT designed around swarming. Swarming ensures popular files are fast, to the exclusion of unpopular stuff.
Of course, if you have problems never getting downloads in eMule, perhaps you should remove draconian limits on how much you're uploading. It really DOES make a difference.
Does this belong in torrents? Only if you want to change the nature of the network. As I understand it, "Super Seeding" does a similar job as this, ensuring that only clients who are uploading chunks back to the network get chunks. However, this only works with the initial seeder. The idea is that once everybody has a copy of the file, the swarm has "started", and at that point, it is fair for all. Myself, I've never had a problem getting any halfway recent files to download on torrents either. I'm not even sure I could get files any faster with a "selfish" client. You see, I already am able to saturate my 6mbit if I want, and I just don't have anymore capacity for downloads. So why cheat? | |
|
| |
| |
SmD Frylock
join:2001-08-09
Farrell, PA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: sounds like Emule/Edonkey it never used to be that way pre QR.
When edonkey first came out, the only thing that stopped leeching was the "You set your upload to at least 10kb's or we're throttling your download" method. once people hacked the client, people started screaming "The Network is gonna die! DO SOMETHING!!", so other clients including ednkey2000 started implementing Queue Ranking based on upload/download ratio.
Pre QR. You could easily saturate a pipe. I watched someone take a T1 down downloading redhat from it back in 2000. and had the file in less than 15 minutes. Queue's were never a problem and initial start never took longer than 1 hour and only if the file was very rare.
Now. you'd have to wait 2 days for one of the file holders to feel pity on you and start uploading to you and then you might break 20kb's as you upload to people who still need that very part you downloaded. Meanwhile the 900 other holders of the file ignore you because they have the entire file and never download from you, thus denying you to download from them.
And if you're talking about Edonkey2000's Horde, that was a joke. no one outside of edonkey2000 supported it, and by then 90-95% of clients were e-mule based.
--
Frankly, I no longer fear Hell anymore, because I know Satan will just put me in my old office and proceed to unleash an unending barrage of stupidity towards me. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: sounds like Emule/Edonkey Another problem with Emule is that Emule will keep starting uploads until the average upload is at 2-4kbyteps per upload (unless the uploader uses a mod), so unless a client has few files/no one in queue, you cant download faster than 2-4kbyteps per user, only chance of getting a higher speed is download from other users at same time. | |
|
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | just call it... bitleech, then that way you know exactly what you are getting... | |
|
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| it's a hobble anything that treats a section of peers deferentially negatively disrupts the efficiency of the swarm as a whole. if you make the assumption that the people running bityrant will stick around and upload just as much as they would had they been using the normal client tweaks, then you are probably making the wrong assumption. any white paper that doesn't take into account the psychology of the user properly (generally as selfish as possible) isn't an accurate accounting/prognosis.
it's the tragedy of the commons, if it's allowed to enter the swarms. my guess is that it'll get banned at the tracker, though to do it properly is going to take resources since the tracker can't rely on the name of the client (there will have to be some kind of analysis).
to me, this sounds more like a subtle poisoning of the swarms by the **aa.
--
A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law. -Ben Franklin | |
|
| Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: it's a hobble what you are saying is, is that if something is for free then in essence has little to no value and therefore the mechanism of sharing gets tied to something with a value and in this case it's a ratio... however, something like bittyrant only gives preference to those with the highest ratios within a given swarm size... the only side to that is if it takes advantage of DHT and then it could become a trackerless BT client and by then no one would care about leeching or seeding... | |
|
| |
jig
join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Re: it's a hobble i don't think that's what i'm saying. i'm saying that once you look to make the swarm as efficient as possible, and consider seriously that each client wants in and out of the torrent as quickly as possible (you can't rely on some sense of sharing on the part of the client), you realize any shortcuts to get out quicker than a client's upload dictates is a detriment the the global efficiency.
basically, you are trunking off a segment of the bandwidth, and not necessarily giving back to the portions of the swarm that want it. of course it's less efficient.
--
A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law. -Ben Franklin | |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
edit:
January 3rd, @06:37PM
| Since it hasn't been pointed out already,,, This is just snake oil for the script kiddies. This client appears to do nothing substantially different than any other BT client.
Before you tracker admins break out the bansticks I feel the need to point out that ALL BT clients choose who to upload to based on how fast they're downloading from those peers. If you're going to ban this client for being selfish you need to ban every other client for doing the same thing.
And in fact the better a client is at making sure it's uploading to the fastest up loaders the better it is for the swarm as it means fast up loaders will have more pieces of the file to upload which means more distributed copies will appear faster.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|
|
pkarlos_76
join:2004-08-24
Edmonton, AB
| Re: Since it hasn't been pointed out already,,, said by Combat Chuck :This is just snake oil for the script kiddies. This client appears to do nothing substantially different than any other BT client. Before you tracker admins break out the bansticks I feel the need to point out that ALL BT clients choose who to upload to based on how fast they're downloading from those peers. If you're going to ban this client for being selfish you need to ban every other client for doing the same thing. And in fact the better a client is at making sure it's uploading to the fastest up loaders the better it is for the swarm as it means fast up loaders will have more pieces of the file to upload which means more distributed copies will appear faster. Unfortunately, thats based upon the assumption that the majority of torrent users are not selfish in which they are. | |
|
EvilMoose
join:2003-02-26
Urbana, IL | BitComet Part 2? I hate bitcomet users for their priority for other bitcomet users. | |
|
Hmmmmmmm
@rogers.com | What about throttled users? Hmmm. This is interesting. But it will negatively affect torrent users who are throttled by their ISPs. With the upload capped at 3KB/s, hard to send anything. | |
|
| 
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| Re: What about throttled users? said by Hmmmmmmm :
Hmmm. This is interesting. But it will negatively affect torrent users who are throttled by their ISPs. With the upload capped at 3KB/s, hard to send anything.
with upload capped at "3KB/s" you shouldn't be thinking about ANY type of file transfers at all. you should be thinking about moving to another state where ISP are not so greedy.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by Hmmmmmmm :
Hmmm. This is interesting. But it will negatively affect torrent users who are throttled by their ISPs. With the upload capped at 3KB/s, hard to send anything.
Use encryption, if thats your real upload dont expect more than 300kbitps download since you dont have enough bandwidth for more than 300kbitps of TCP ACKs. Either your dialup or Cellular user, get broadband or deal with it. | |
|
| |
Hmmmmmmm
@rogers.com
| Re: What about throttled users? No, no. You see, I have 5000/800 cable internet. It is that in bit torrent my upload refuses to go higher than 3KBps (25kbit). I can still download at 200KBps but not upload. And this is with encryption.
So this new bit torrent client does put put throttled users like me at a disadvantage. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: What about throttled users? Hmmm, your ISp is using BT Encryption resistent throttling. Havent heard of any yet. Sorry I cant help you, but it is interesting, since now the BT people must come up with something better. | |
|
weaselnerd6
join:2005-11-17
Spokane, WA
edit:
January 4th, @04:26AM
| Upload bandwidth If you read the entirety of their frontpage it says several places it does not attempt to reduce total upload bandwidth, but instead allocate it to other people who have shared well with your client and, presumably, with others.
Other clients, including azereus and bittornado, include ways to throttle your upload, but they certainly haven't turned bittorrent into some leechers dying paradise.
As long as it doesn't withhold any bandwidth from the swarm, giving the majority of your data to people who contribute more upload capacity makes the swarm better.
This entire thread is a bunch of people freaking out over the negative connotation of the word selfish. | |
|
| JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
| Re: Upload bandwidth Probably some actual studies of how in works in practice will be necessary to sort it out, since it depends on human psychology among other imponderables. But I think you are right that some people are going to excessive lengths to ensure that the system is "fair" without defining exactly what that means. It can't be fair all the time for all people; the system has to be asymmetric at some point to get it working at all. It is just a question of how far out of bounds you are going to let users get, and how to track that. | |
|
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Upload bandwidth I have a question. What happens to the peer who has no pieces to send to me. Does it get blocked or is it allowed to leach from me? OTOH, I want to block any peer who has pieces I want (and wants pieces I have) who does not unchoke me after I've sent it a piece or two or who leaches at an excessive rate without sending me pieces that it has and I need. I do not mind so much if the excessive speed leacher does not have anything I want/need. | |
|
|
|
|
BitTyrant: The 'Selfish' BitTorrent Client
·
Looks like it is designed to punish those who slow uploads
