[bittorrent] Friend-machines-assisted approach to boosting one's BT download

Elliott Mitchell ehem at m5p.com
Sat Jun 10 22:51:38 EDT 2006


>From: ByteCool Software <coolspeech at hotmail.com>
> So these friend machines automatically join a torrent when I do. But
> this alone may not help boost my own downloading much. So, I would like
> the friend machines and my machine to try download chunks different
> from that of each other. As soon as these macihnes combined have all
> the chunks, they can quit the torrent (doing so all of a sudden can
> harm the rest of the swarm, so somebody advised me that they should
> quit one by one in moderate intervals), and transfer their chunks that
> I don't have yet to my machine. Of course we assume that downloading
> these chunks via the torrent is slower than via the friends-to-me
> broadband connections.
> 
> So, can this friend-machines-assisted approach make my downloading
> faster than my machine alone in the torrent swarm?

Yes.

You're not the first person to think of this. I've been thinking of the
friends' machines as "slaves". I've also been primarily thinking of using
the meeting with DVD-RWs in hand or through the mail approach (awful
latency, but the bandwidth is pretty good). The underlying idea is the
same though. I'm finally in a position, network-wise, to test this, now
the issue is implementing the software.

Such an implementation done properly conforms to the existing BitTorrent
protocol. There is no need for discussion, unless you're hoping to
standardize the interfriend protocol. There is only the note that the
cluster will display somewhat odd behavior compared to other clients,
there will be pieces it has not advertised possesion of and yet be
completely uninterested in. This is one of the reasons for the note under
"have" on the wiki page stating that attempting to model peer behavior
is hazardous (notably only updating peers about a few pieces with HAVE
messages on the assumption that it /will/ be interested in those won't
work).


>From: Harold Feit <dwknight at depthstrike.com>
> Your proposal has been rejected by the regulars of #bittorrent on
> irc.freenode.net for being too individual downloader centric to the
> point that you have been banned from the channel.
> 
> Additionally, you have been spamming this proposal in areas that are not
> on-topic for discussions about the bittorrent protocol.
> 
> Bittorrent is a swarm-centric protocol, not a downloader-centric.

Perhaps off-topic from the POV that this is irrelevant with respect to
the BitTorrent protocol, but is on-topic because this is a valid
implementation of BT.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         EHeM at gremlin.m5p.com PGP 8881EF59         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
    \___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 4C 40 E6\_|_/___/





More information about the BitTorrent mailing list