Re: Tracker scrape extension proposal

> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> 
>>Nick Johnson wrote:
>>  
>>
>>>On 13/01/2005, at 1:07 PM, Harold Feit - Depthstrike.com Administrator 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>If you're scraping for 100 torrents, you may be better off just
>>>>getting the full scrape anyway. As wrong as the behavior appears for
>>>>multiple info_hash values, the way that it is handled is fairly
>>>>consistent across different archtypes of trackers (although is more
>>>>dependent on the archtypes of programming styles). Additional
>>>>trackers will be supporting this in the near future.
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>This isn't such a good idea when the tracker has literally thousands of 
>>>torrents, though. I'd really like to see an extension that has at least 
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>1000 torrents would result in 32 kb of 'real' info. That's assuming 
>>bencoding overhead is compressed away.
>>100 single-scrape requests/responses already use 50 kb (IP/TCP/HTTP 
>>overhead).
>>So a full-scrape might be the best option.
>>  
>>
> I've seen tracker scrape pages that are 3-4MB. When I want 100 hashes 

With gzip compression? Or without?
3 mb is a lot.

> from the tracker, individual requests aren't particularaly efficient, 
> but nor is fetching everything. I'd still rather fetch everything than 
> hit the tracker with 100 HTTP requests, though. This is why I think it'd 

Why?
100 single-torrent requests consume far less than 3 mb.

> be useful to have a mechanism that:
> 1) Falls back to retrieving everything
> 2) Can be easily supported by any CGI system, rather than relying on 
> specifying multiple values for a single variable, something PHP does not 
> easily support.
> 
> -Nick Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>


 
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:
    [email protected]

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