Re: [discuss] Bittorrent

Actually you can let the end user decide how much upstream to reserve for bittorrent and 
how long to keep torrents running after they are done - because that's what Azureus does 
and it obviously works. I see no reason to give torrents a special treatment.

I don't understand why you shouldn't introduce firewalled hosts into the download mesh. 
UDP pushes cost practically nothing and once a location does not work anymore it will 
quickly be removed. In addition the firewalled host itself could control very well how far 
it spreads alternate locations for itself if you do not let other downloading clients 
propagate push-proxy-alt-locs.

mfg
gregorio

Zlatin Balevsky wrote:
> The only technical challenge between integrating the client code from azureus is that it uses nio, which is java 1.4 feature.  However, there are some very serious "political" decisions regarding how much uplink to reserve for torrents and how long to leave torrents running after they are done.  Basically we can't rely on the end-user to decide these things for himself because that can potentially ruin the torrent community.
> 
> Regarding the UPnP support, just today I extracted the UPnP plugin from azureus into a standalone program (under the close guidance of Parg - its author, to whom I thank very much).  It comes to a nice 61kb jar _including_ the source ;-)
> 
> Regarding UDP pushes - those do not give us the freedom to include firewalled hosts in the download mesh directly, at least not in its current state.  There have been some preliminary ideas about "live" meshes, but those are in early theoretical stage.  The benefit from UDP pushes as of now are only the much faster connection times and the reduced bandwidth usage.
> 
> Zlatin
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.limewire.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss