Arnaud Legout wrote:
Byte-for-byte (BFB) algorithm and choke algorithm (CA) are far from
being equivalent.
In all the studies that mention BFB I am aware of, they never mention
the case of seeds. They simply say that peers must not receive more than
they give.
This is the definition of BFB. You can introduce a threshold, but it
does not change the main idea and there is no proposed solution
to define a dynamic threshold.
It seems to me that you're comparing apples to oranges if you assume
that byte-for-byte fairness between downloaders means there can't be any
seeds. Specifying different behaviours for downloaders and seeds - as
the choke algorithm does - wouldn't require a dynamic threshold.
SWIFT is a mechanism that uses approximate byte-for-byte fairness
between downloaders while assuming that seeds will upload to anyone:
http://mnl.cs.stonybrook.edu/home/vinay/papers/swift-p2pecon.pdf
Cheers,
Michael
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
