Standards (was [BitTorrent] Back to Merkle Hash Trees...)
Olaf van der Spek
OvdSpek at LIACS.NL
Tue Feb 8 13:18:58 EST 2005
Justin Cormack wrote:
>>You can tell everyone that you have them if necessary/useful, that's
>>what chunk_have is for.
> But having *both* makes for complicated decisions (when do I use each one)
> and optimisation. Whats wrong with one kind of have message which refers
> to something that just got transferred.
Network overhead. Which could be 'prevented' with the same kind of
>>And the disadvantage of a larger chunk size is that a peer is required
>>to send the entire chunk (or to close the connection). This is related
>>to the choking algorithm.
> Well you shouldnt unchoke if you arent prepared to feed one chunk. And
But if chunks would be for example 1 mbyte, that'd be an 'issue'.
> so 32k is clearly ok, as thats what BT1 uses. I think scaling it by file
Wasn't that 16k?
> size makes some sense, as assuming the number of peers is not proportional
> to the size of the file you are going to have to feed them more.
But the granularity of chokes would change too (as it depends on chunk
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