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 
complicated decisions.

>>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

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

More information about the BitTorrent mailing list