[BitTorrent] Tracker-hub implementation?
Harold Feit - Depthstrike.com Administrator
dwknight at depthstrike.com
Tue Nov 30 23:04:14 EST 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Valid points about the efficiency John. I haven't touched your link
enough to know its limitations/drawbacks, but I do know that if it
doesn't use keep-alives, it becomes quite a problem, building and
destroying a connection per torrent every update cycle (it adds up
and can get pretty messy in configurations not ready for it).
You may not have intended multitracker to become a generally accepted
standard, but it did. Take pride in the fact that it did.
I currently have a real-world implementation of the BNBT based
persistent links and find that the overhead, in a properly deployed
state (ideally using multitracker for proper load balancing of
clients), is quite low. In my deployment, I have the tracker network
hub operating completely independent from any BT client peers so as
to keep the overhead generated by the link as low as possible. I have
yet to hardcore stress-test the network under its current
configuration, but it does hold up pretty well in low-medium
(5,000-10,000) peercounts (buckling because of Windows TCP
limitations, my own fault primarily). I find the single persistent
link to be quite stable and efficient in my configuration compared to
the peer stealer method I used probably over a year ago (similar to
the method your tracker uses).
I think we can agree that distributed tracker systems are already
available, and practical. How practical each one is varies by
- -----Original Message-----
From: John Hoffman [mailto:theshadow at shambala.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 9:17 PM
To: BitTorrent at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BitTorrent] Tracker-hub implementation?
>The BitTornado source package ( http://bittornado.com ) includes one
>method of linking trackers, but is extremely inefficient and very
>abusive to each tracker in the network, gathering peer data by
>appearing to be a client to get batches of peers and adding to its
>internal database. This method is VERY abusive to trackers.
>Some versions BNBT (specifically 7.3, 7.7, and 8.0;
>http://bnbt.go-dedicated.com ) and trackers based on those versions
>have much more efficient ways to link trackers available, relaying
>peer data between each other. All communication between trackers
>happens over a persistent link in a similar fashion to IRC, although
>using a propietary protocol to do so. Currently it does not support
>linking multiple tracker hubs to each other, it only supports 1 hub
>with 64 leaves (as far as I have checked).
Hi. First off, while I defined announce-list as an (unofficial)
standard for specifying multiple trackers in the metadata, I never
intended the multi-tracker implementation in BitTornado to be a
standard. Rather, it was a proof-of-concept.
Second, the peer-sharing arrangement for my trackers isn't as
as it could be, but it is not abusive. Cross-tracker communications
overhead is constant compared to tracker load, and would be approx.
on each tracker in 4-tracker swarm where each tracker was handling 10
torrents and 10,000 peers.
Third, having persistent connections between trackers would be more
efficient, but load might be linear instead of constant depending on
implementation, in which case overhead might be much higher than my
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.3 - Release Date: 11/26/2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BitTorrent-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
More information about the BitTorrent