Bug#458819: Re: Bug#458819: ITP: nettee -- a network tee program
Out of curiosity, besides being a bit easier to remember/type, and not requiring the user to choose a port, what benefits over combining normal tee and netcat does it have? for example: On A: nettee -in IMAGE -next B -v 31 #full logging On B: nettee -next C /dev/hda On C: nettee -next D /dev/hda On D: nettee -next E /dev/hda On E: nettee -next F /dev/hda On F: nettee /dev/hda AFAICT, that could be done more or less equivlently as On A: nc -q0 B 12345 IMAGE On B: nc -l 12345 | tee (nc -q0 C 12345) /dev/hda On C: nc -l 12345 | tee (nc -q0 D 12345) /dev/hda On D: nc -l 12345 | tee (nc -q0 E 12345) /dev/hda On E: nc -l 12345 | tee (nc -q0 F 12345) /dev/hda On F: nc -l 12345 /dev/hda (Some stdout redirections to /dev/null could be added, so stdin on the reciving does not come out as stdout on the sending end.) Hi Joe, Good question. IMHO, i think that the main benefits are: - simplicity: like you already said, the simple command, without complex pipe setups like showed in your example comments. You have to agree with me that that netcat + tee pipe commands are not trivial. If I had known about that commands, i will not have searched for somenthing like nettee in Google. - multiple target: you can specify multiple targets to send the stream and not only one. Use the -next hostlist1(,hostlist2(,hostlist3(...))) Ok.. ok.. you can make it with a complex pipe; i just can say that i will say again the previous argument. - error check in the stream data: there is a check for transmission errors in the code. This is util when there are failed nodes. - error handling while data is being transmited: there is a lot of options to the chain not die if there is a single node failure. In your pipe commands, if one node die, the full chain is lost. In short, simplicity and error check. If you liked, can you be my sponsor? :) -- | | Joel Franco Guzmán .''`. | self-powered by : :' : | Debian Linux `. `' | `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458819: ITP: nettee -- a network tee program
Hi Peter, I had not much knownledge about the torrent protocol and then i have read about it to compare to nettee. Wikipedia: - 'BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) communications protocol' - 'downloads can take time to rise to full speed because it may take time for enough peer connections to be established, and it takes time for a node to receive sufficient data to become an effective uploader.' At first, it appeared to be a good solution by the protocol design goals but the defficiences for the clone needs (fixme): - It was designed to operate in WAN networks where there are high latencies and slow bandwith compared to the exactly oppose in the LANs. Nettee could make better here. - It appears that the initial times to get full download speed is not instantaneous (like in nettee) but dependent in a exchange messages that would be not necessary. - it's a lot complex protocol. Why not make a simple protocol (like in nettee)? Nettee is: - simple - small - designed to lans - designed to generic proposities and not specific to any operation A defficience could be the node dead in the chain, but there is approaches implemented that contour this problems. Have i convinced you that nettee is cool and that could be offered to the debian users? And, could you be my sponsor? :) Regards. -- Joel Franco Guzmán On Wed Jan 02 08 22:33, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Joel Franco] Description : a network tee program It can typically transfer data between N nodes at (nearly) the full bandwidth provided by the switch which connects them. It is handy for cloning nodes or moving large database files. So would that make nettee a faster bittorrent? Or is bittorrent, in fact, a faster nettee? -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458819: ITP: nettee -- a network tee program
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Joel Franco [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Package name: nettee Version : 0.1.8 Upstream Author : David Mathog [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://saf.bio.caltech.edu/nettee.html * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : a network tee program It can typically transfer data between N nodes at (nearly) the full bandwidth provided by the switch which connects them. It is handy for cloning nodes or moving large database files. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.23.11 (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=pt_BR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_BR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to pt_BR.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#458819: ITP: nettee -- a network tee program
[Joel Franco] Description : a network tee program It can typically transfer data between N nodes at (nearly) the full bandwidth provided by the switch which connects them. It is handy for cloning nodes or moving large database files. So would that make nettee a faster bittorrent? Or is bittorrent, in fact, a faster nettee? -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
