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)

True.

> 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 
size).



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    BitTorrent-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 





More information about the BitTorrent mailing list