Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
> Regarding Bittorrent: > Bitorrent requires a separate instance and a separate port for every > file that you are sharing. When some people will be sharing > hundreds of files this is simply not a workable approach. Yes, this is a big drawback in bittorrent's current implementation. It could be fixed, but someone needs to step up to do it. (a single bittorrent peer process listening on one port that can manage multiple file torrents would make it suitable to leave running all the time) > Bittorent is optimized towards dealing with a small number of large > files under very high (initial) demand situations. Our needs are a > little different, we are dealing with large number of much smaller > files under moderate demand and without the initial spike in > demand. The suggestion of doing this on a per-ebuild basis for huge things like openoffice, mozilla, and java is a good one. > P2P in general: > The content of the network needs to be tightly controlled. We are > dealing with source code here and the consequences of someone being > able to inject malicious code or malicious files into the network > would be unthinkable. Therefore ALL files on the network MUST be > vetted by a central server, and ONLY files allowed by the central > server would be allowed on the network. All files transfered over > the network MUST be checked to make sure that they match the > checksums of the authorized files. This is not a problem for bittorrent, mnet, freenet and several others. blocks of data are identified (and verified) using their SHA-1 hash in those systems. bittorrent is only a p2p content distribution agent, it doesn't allow storage within the network; its only purpose it help ease the load on the data hosters. (ie: using bittorrent won't guarantee you faster download speeds but it is kind to the bandwidth budgets on the mirrors) A rogue bittorrent peer can -not- inject bad data into your download. it can only waste your bandwidth. Bittorrent's 3.2.1 only supports a single central tracker rather than allowing coordination between multiple redundant trackers. If multiple trackers are run for a single file it fragments the p2p network into sub networks making it overall less effective because two peers with the same file aren't exposed to the entire audience of peers wanting parts of that file. What this means for gentoo to use bittorrent would be that a single tracker would be needed for the files hosted using torrents and that a few of the gentoo mirrors should run bittorrent peers on the hosted files so that there are always some good complete data sources other than end user systems. > As far as I know there are no p2p networks that allow this much > central control, the trend in p2p networks is away from central > control because of liability issues. not true. p2p simply means peer to peer. bittorrent does not have that goal. it is meant solely for a practical application: hosting large content using less centralized bandwidth. it uses a central tracker to kick things off for each peer. You're applying that meaning to p2p when you really mean specific subset of p2p networks with that goal (mnet, freenet, gnutella, kazaa, et al). > I am in the process of writing a p2p system specifically for gentoo > that will have the necessary controls in place to make it safe for > distrubuting source code. It will be optional and controlled by > the FETCHCOMMEND= setting in make.conf > > I also want to create a network that is 100% legal content so that > when the RIAA or MPAA goes on a rampage we will be unaffected. bittorrent is not a network; its an application. it doesn't have any association with the content people use it on. if someone uses it to host something they don't have the rights too it is no different than them posting it on a web server. bittorrent cannot be held liable for that any more so than MS-IIS, Apache, ftpd, ftp, mozilla, IE, etc.. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 11:43, Fred Van Andel wrote: > P2P in general: > The content of the network needs to be tightly controlled. We are > dealing with source code here and the consequences of someone being > able to inject malicious code or malicious files into the network > would be unthinkable. Therefore ALL files on the network MUST be > vetted by a central server, and ONLY files allowed by the central > server would be allowed on the network. All files transfered over > the network MUST be checked to make sure that they match the > checksums of the authorized files. Not sure I agree with you here. On the contrary, you should have distributed files, vetted across the network, and used to ensure validity of the ones that may potentially have malicious files/codes. Which is why we have mirrors today. :) My 2 cents. Ciao ST Lim -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On September 22, 2003 03:40 pm, Pupeno wrote: > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate > bittorrent into ebuild so people could use it to download the > sources from diferent mirrors and even people could share a bit > aliviating mirrors' task... of course, the current way should be > available always and bittorrent as an improved way if it is > posible (that is, if bittorrent is installed (and enabled ?) and > there's a .bittorrent file for the file that's going to be > downloaded). Or this is already done and I didn't know ? > Thanks. My apologies in entering this thread very late. Regarding Bittorrent: Bitorrent requires a separate instance and a separate port for every file that you are sharing. When some people will be sharing hundreds of files this is simply not a workable approach. Bittorent is optimized towards dealing with a small number of large files under very high (initial) demand situations. Our needs are a little different, we are dealing with large number of much smaller files under moderate demand and without the initial spike in demand. P2P in general: The content of the network needs to be tightly controlled. We are dealing with source code here and the consequences of someone being able to inject malicious code or malicious files into the network would be unthinkable. Therefore ALL files on the network MUST be vetted by a central server, and ONLY files allowed by the central server would be allowed on the network. All files transfered over the network MUST be checked to make sure that they match the checksums of the authorized files. As far as I know there are no p2p networks that allow this much central control, the trend in p2p networks is away from central control because of liability issues. I am in the process of writing a p2p system specifically for gentoo that will have the necessary controls in place to make it safe for distrubuting source code. It will be optional and controlled by the FETCHCOMMEND= setting in make.conf I also want to create a network that is 100% legal content so that when the RIAA or MPAA goes on a rampage we will be unaffected. - -- Fred Van Andel [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG KeyID: 76526AD599455482 GPG fingerprint: 64E4 4BAB 9C99 D565 3E3C F5D0 7652 6AD5 9945 5482 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ek1rdlJq1ZlFVIIRAg54AJ40m06cRHu0F1/GYSA374fq0TZ7YgCfVq8l rHXt1j3FG47MFsGumjx4mic= =GUqZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On 29 Sep 2003, at 5:44 am, Stephen Boulet wrote: On Thursday 25 September 2003 08:38 am, Stroller wrote: You only have to open specific ports on firewalls if you are serving a torrent. Others jumping on it have no problem, and are encouraged to do so, since they make everyone's download rate go up. I think you're mistaken. As far as BitTorrent is concerned there should be no difference between someone "serving" a torrent (IE: the original individual with the complete file) and other peer with parts to share. Someone who is NATted or firewalled but who has the complete file may contribute very little (if at all - I don't know how BT implements this) to other peers. I wonder if the fact that I've enabled stateful connection tracking makes a difference: iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -i eth1 -s ! $INTERNAL_NET -j ACCEPT I know Linux is generally a more "clever" NAT router than these cheap little hardware jobbies, but I don't believe this'll make a difference. I'd love to here an argument or analysis of why it should, tho', because my brain hurts right now. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Thursday 25 September 2003 08:38 am, Stroller wrote: > > > > You only have to open specific ports on firewalls if you are serving a > > torrent. Others jumping on it have no problem, and are encouraged to > > do so, > > since they make everyone's download rate go up. > > I think you're mistaken. As far as BitTorrent is concerned there should > be no difference between someone "serving" a torrent (IE: the original > individual with the complete file) and other peer with parts to share. > Someone who is NATted or firewalled but who has the complete file may > contribute very little (if at all - I don't know how BT implements > this) to other peers. I wonder if the fact that I've enabled stateful connection tracking makes a difference: iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -i eth1 -s ! $INTERNAL_NET -j ACCEPT But you're probably right... > Stroller. -- Stephen From here to there and there to here, funny things are everywhere. -- Dr Seuss -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On 25 Sep 2003, at 7:08 am, Stephen Boulet wrote: On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:01 am, Terry Churchill wrote: Absoloutely, but I don't agree that bittorrent is the way to go. But - it should be an option for those who do want to use it, and are willing to open the required ports on firewalls, etc. [snip] You only have to open specific ports on firewalls if you are serving a torrent. Others jumping on it have no problem, and are encouraged to do so, since they make everyone's download rate go up. I think you're mistaken. As far as BitTorrent is concerned there should be no difference between someone "serving" a torrent (IE: the original individual with the complete file) and other peer with parts to share. Someone who is NATted or firewalled but who has the complete file may contribute very little (if at all - I don't know how BT implements this) to other peers. For anyone else reading who is unfamiliar with BitTorrent, background is available at http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/introduction.html I've been using BitTorrent quite a bit recently, and this is what I can surmise: - BitTorrent relies on all peers serving the file simultaneously as downloading it. - If you are behind NAT or a firewall, and have not opened the appropriate ports then other peers cannot connect to you. They can, however, share the file with you if you can connect to them. - The problem with this is that the VAST majority of users are NATted or firewalled & do NOT open these ports. - Consequently, the burden of sharing is shifted largely onto the few peers who do have their ports open correctly. - All NATted / firewalled peers (without ports open) share a total download bandwidth supplied by the total upload of peers with their ports open correctly. It is more desirable that all peers share a download bandwidth equalling the total upload of ALL peers (which is many times more). - If you open your ports, all the incorrectly configured clients can then connect to you, and you benefit from their total upload bandwidth, too. Whether this is important is a matter of scaling. I tend to deal mostly, at present, with .torrents with a shortish life-span (of a week or three) and total peers in the order of 10 - 200. My theory is that when a .torrent is fresh, there a relatively high number of "sophisticated" peers connected: that is to say peers who know what they're doing & have their ports open; if just one or two of these peers are on a fast connection (say 3mbit or a university connection) then they can largely compensate for all the "unsophisticated" peers (without their ports open). It is still possible for the unsophisticated peers to download, say, a 650meg file in a matter of a few hours, especially as an unspohisticated peer may get a chunk from one sophisticated peer and share it with several others. When there are only a dozen or two peers, however, and only one of them has his ports open, the download rate for NATted/firewalled peers slows to trickle - if the sophisticated peer has only 512/256 ADSL, then his meagre upload is shared between ALL of the unsophisticated peers. The sophisticated peer can get chunks from all of the other peers, however, and may still be able to saturate his bandwidth. A characteristic of this scenario is that you may experience very fast download rates up to a certain point, and only then does the trickle become noticeable. Conclusion: it may not always matter to you if you're NATted or firewalled when you BitTorrent, but if you are then you become part of the problem. Users opening their BitTorrent ports (6881 - 6889 are a good start) may experience speed increases of a factor of 10 or more. It is my experience that for any reasonably well-seeded (or even well-peered) file then BitTorrent should be able to saturate my 512k ADSL download bandwidth - I can download a 650meg file in 3 - 6 hours, when NATted / firewalled peers might show ETAs of several days for the same file. I like this discussion of BitTorrent's ports & firewall requirements, but it seems to be down at the time of writing: http://www.dessent.net/btfaq/#ports I would be interested to discuss this matter further, especially if you can point out any flaws in my reasoning. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 09:01 am, Terry Churchill wrote: > Absoloutely, but I don't agree that bittorrent is the way to go. > > But - it should be an option for those who do want to use it, and are > willing to open the required ports on firewalls, etc. [snip] You only have to open specific ports on firewalls if you are serving a torrent. Others jumping on it have no problem, and are encouraged to do so, since they make everyone's download rate go up. I'm a big fan, if you couldn't tell. ;) -- Stephen From here to there and there to here, funny things are everywhere. -- Dr Seuss -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 22:14, Terry Churchill wrote: > My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 01:57PM > > Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > > This is worse than downloading a single mirror. If every body did that > > the stress on the mirrors would be much worse than it is already. The > > good thing about bittorrent is that clients would get better speeds than > > they are currently with only a tiny amount of extra stress put on the > > mirrors. Depending on how nice clients are on average, it could actually > > lessen the stress on the mirrors while still increasing overall bandwidth > > of downloads. > > TBH I don't see what bittorrent has got overly a properly configured > make.conf. I used mirrorselect way back when I originally installed gentoo > & have never had less than around 250Kb from the mirrors. > > Sure, the mirrors need a lot of bandwidth, but I'm sure they understand > that when setting them up. Similarly, I get about 600Kb. But the point is scalability; what happens when there's 10 times as many users as there are now? Any system administrator will tell you that the issue of scalability is best handled proactively. Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 02:48PM Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > Similarly, I get about 600Kb. But the point is scalability; what happens when > there's 10 times as many users as there are now? Any system administrator > will tell you that the issue of scalability is best handled proactively. Absoloutely, but I don't agree that bittorrent is the way to go. But - it should be an option for those who do want to use it, and are willing to open the required ports on firewalls, etc. However, I suspect that you'll see users running it long enough to download whichever files they are interested in & then stopping it. Until there is a way around this I don't see it as an answer. I'd actually like to see public web-cache like machines that interface directly with the gentoo mirrors & hold the most requested files. I don't see that as a longterm solution though. -- .~. Terry Churchill : [EMAIL PROTECTED] .''`. /V\ ICQ : 256731870 : :' : /(_)\ http://www.doc-linux.co.uk/`. `'` ^ ^ `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
My pet monkey insists that on Sep 23 2003 at 01:57PM Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> warbled: > This is worse than downloading a single mirror. If every body did that the > stress on the mirrors would be much worse than it is already. The good thing > about bittorrent is that clients would get better speeds than they are > currently with only a tiny amount of extra stress put on the mirrors. > Depending on how nice clients are on average, it could actually lessen the > stress on the mirrors while still increasing overall bandwidth of downloads. TBH I don't see what bittorrent has got overly a properly configured make.conf. I used mirrorselect way back when I originally installed gentoo & have never had less than around 250Kb from the mirrors. Sure, the mirrors need a lot of bandwidth, but I'm sure they understand that when setting them up. -- .~. Terry Churchill : [EMAIL PROTECTED] .''`. /V\ ICQ : 256731870 : :' : /(_)\ http://www.doc-linux.co.uk/`. `'` ^ ^ `- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 21:17, Sigurd Stordal wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate > > > > bittorrent into ebuild so people could use it to download the sources > > > > from diferent mirrors and even people could share a bit aliviating > > If you use prozilla, you'll be able to download source from many different > mirrors at the same time. So why would you need bittorrent. This is worse than downloading a single mirror. If every body did that the stress on the mirrors would be much worse than it is already. The good thing about bittorrent is that clients would get better speeds than they are currently with only a tiny amount of extra stress put on the mirrors. Depending on how nice clients are on average, it could actually lessen the stress on the mirrors while still increasing overall bandwidth of downloads. Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate > > > bittorrent into ebuild so people could use it to download the sources > > > from diferent mirrors and even people could share a bit aliviating If you use prozilla, you'll be able to download source from many different mirrors at the same time. So why would you need bittorrent. you can set up prozilla by emerge it and the uncomment the FETCH...=proz . command in make.conf. By default it will use 5 diiferent mirrors, but you could change that in the FETCH... line (don't remember exactly what of it now, but it should be easy to find out). - -- Sigurd Stordal President of GOGS Experimental Petrologist -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/cDnSSB4UOs/snOURAgtdAJ9IlgVzQIn9n0DiejPaj3N9g669ZQCff2ZP SGyOy5o217csblInsxSRWlA= =vjtX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
Daniel Robbins wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 16:40, Pupeno wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate bittorrent > > into ebuild so people could use it to download the sources... > > I talked to the bittorent author about this and he was happy to help, > and it would be nice to add this functionality. Great!!! Now I just need to get a bigger pipe (I'm on dialup now so BT will make no difference here :-/ Regards, Norberto -- 01:17:17 up 8:11, 2 users, load average: 1.93, 1.70, 1.63 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 22 September 2003 06:45 pm, Daniel Robbins wrote: > I talked to the bittorent author about this and he was happy to help, > and it would be nice to add this functionality. He did point out that > bittorrent works best with large files like ISOs rather than > standard-sized archives, though. > > Best Regards, > > Daniel It but not be best for the smaller patches and archives but it would rock for things like mozilla, OO, and the kernel - -- "It's not easy being green. It takes way more food coloring than you'd think." -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/b4E02t4GPvDPJlARAlBBAJ0Ys/jfYl1fdfIh22XT6rFU0Y74hgCgg8m7 x0jBMfcYFog9ZOZUwsMTQ8I= =m/La -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 04:45:00PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 16:40, Pupeno wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate bittorrent into > > ebuild so people could use it to download the sources from diferent mirrors > > and even people could share a bit aliviating mirrors' task... of course, the > > current way should be available always and bittorrent as an improved way if > > it is posible (that is, if bittorrent is installed (and enabled ?) and > > there's a .bittorrent file for the file that's going to be downloaded). > > Or this is already done and I didn't know ? > > Thanks. > > I talked to the bittorent author about this and he was happy to help, > and it would be nice to add this functionality. He did point out that > bittorrent works best with large files like ISOs rather than > standard-sized archives, though. IIRC there was some discussion of this previously, and it sounded like the best way would be to use bittorrent on a per ebuild basis, ie: only on big packages like openoffice. I got the impression that the bt integration was coming sometime soon in the development version, but have no idea if the dev version is the ~x86, a masked version, or just a gleam the gentoo-dev teams eye :) alan -- Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://arcterex.net "There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain climbing. All the others are mere games."-- Hemingway pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 16:40, Pupeno wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate bittorrent into > ebuild so people could use it to download the sources from diferent mirrors > and even people could share a bit aliviating mirrors' task... of course, the > current way should be available always and bittorrent as an improved way if > it is posible (that is, if bittorrent is installed (and enabled ?) and > there's a .bittorrent file for the file that's going to be downloaded). > Or this is already done and I didn't know ? > Thanks. I talked to the bittorent author about this and he was happy to help, and it would be nice to add this functionality. He did point out that bittorrent works best with large files like ISOs rather than standard-sized archives, though. Best Regards, Daniel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-user] bittorrent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was just thinking if it wouldn't be a good idea to integrate bittorrent into ebuild so people could use it to download the sources from diferent mirrors and even people could share a bit aliviating mirrors' task... of course, the current way should be available always and bittorrent as an improved way if it is posible (that is, if bittorrent is installed (and enabled ?) and there's a .bittorrent file for the file that's going to be downloaded). Or this is already done and I didn't know ? Thanks. - -- Pupeno: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kde.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/b3pjLr8z5XzmSDQRAsKqAJwNC+S7XEnnvscgcoPzuOyxODuyAwCfbp8L cBtkvwmSpjR7+aBSxplVHP4= =TaN0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent?
> You said you only tried it a couple times--maybe the problem is with the > particular torrent(s) you tried? Might be. I managed to get one downloaded fine. But the 2 Animatrix ones I tried seem to hang at connecting to peers. I am behind a MASQ router - it looks like there's an option to disallow that in the torrent? I have allowed 6887 through - though I don't know how to route it to a particular server. Which also begs the question: how can I get DHCP to talk to DNS (on the same machine) and register hostnames that register with the DHCP? MIKE -- Beware the JabberOrk -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent?
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 11:45:31PM -0400, MIKE MacMartin wrote: > More info... in a bttest.py run, here's the list of fails: > > the following tests failed: > BitTorrent.Downloader.test_choke_clears_active > BitTorrent.Downloader.test_got_have_single > BitTorrent.Downloader.test_stops_at_backlog > BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_piece_came_in_no_interest_lost > BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_hash_fail > BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_piece_came_in_lost_interest Interestingly, bttest.py gives me those same results as well, but the download client has been working fine for me. Well, btdownloadcurses.py occasionally starts spewing some errors after it has been downloading a little while, but btdownloadgui.py has been working fine for me. You said you only tried it a couple times--maybe the problem is with the particular torrent(s) you tried? -- Thomas J. Hamman "I have had my solutions for a long time, but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them." -Karl Friedrich Gauss -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bittorrent?
On June 29, 2003 11:43 pm, MIKE MacMartin wrote: > I emerged the (masked) bittorrent... and I've tried it twice. It seems to > hang on "connecting to peers". This may be because it's slow on dialup or > because at the other place I tried, the firewall didn't allow port 6667? > or is it a buggy client? More info... in a bttest.py run, here's the list of fails: the following tests failed: BitTorrent.Downloader.test_choke_clears_active BitTorrent.Downloader.test_got_have_single BitTorrent.Downloader.test_stops_at_backlog BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_piece_came_in_no_interest_lost BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_hash_fail BitTorrent.EndgameDownloader.test_piece_came_in_lost_interest > MIKE Yup, me again -- Beware the JabberOrk -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] bittorrent?
I emerged the (masked) bittorrent... and I've tried it twice. It seems to hang on "connecting to peers". This may be because it's slow on dialup or because at the other place I tried, the firewall didn't allow port 6667? or is it a buggy client? MIKE -- Beware the JabberOrk -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] BitTorrent - GentooGames
Hello. I emerged in bittorrent and downloaded the .ISO for RTCW-ET and had the program running for about a day, now it gets "Connection refused" when its trying to connect. ERROR (06:59 PM) - Problem connecting to tracker - Would anyone know how to rectify this problem please? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] BitTorrent?
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 13:43, Richard Revis wrote:
> Is there a .torrent file for the Gentoo ISOs (it's not especially needed
> with the likes of mirror.ac.uk handling files, but it might reduce load
> somewhat).
>
> Equally, is it possible to grab some of the largest source archives (like
> open office) via a torrent, either manually or automatically via emerge?
> Might save some of the mirrors from being nuked whenever a new version of
> X is released :o)
This actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
For gentoo .iso files this would be an exceptionally good idea,
since we already have servers for those files it would require very little
effort to post an optional iso.torrent which I would happily use and it
would deffinitly lessen the load on the servers.
For big tarballs like openoffice the problem is that OOo would have to put up
a torrent file for us to use since we get the source from them.
But this makes me think... hmm... there has to be some servers out there that
supply torrents.. so what about a possible USE="torrent" flag for packages
that could be downloaded by torrent? The "torrent" flag would NOT affect
the ebuild since the ebuild itself doesnt care how the source is downloaded, the
flag would mostly just be there to warn the user that they need to adjust their
make.conf file to use something like the following to download the file.
FETCHCOMMAND='/usr/bin/btdownloadcurses.py --url ${URI} ${DISTDIR}
Maybe we could even throw some sort of if statement into make.conf to check
the value of the USE flags, and if "torrent" is found then to use the bittorrnt
fetchcommand automatically, otherwise it will just use the regular fetchcommand.
..meh.. sounds like a bit to much work(pardon the pun)
Im open for others comments though, I think its a neat idea, im just not sure
if it would work.
Alex
--
Microsoft hardly needs a SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO
is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe, coupled with an
announcement designed to further intimidate Linux users.
--Bruce Perens
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] BitTorrent?
Is there a .torrent file for the Gentoo ISOs (it's not especially needed with the likes of mirror.ac.uk handling files, but it might reduce load somewhat). Equally, is it possible to grab some of the largest source archives (like open office) via a torrent, either manually or automatically via emerge? Might save some of the mirrors from being nuked whenever a new version of X is released :o) -- The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true. 20:40:58 up 13 days, 7:06, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.11, 0.09 E-mail address munged to prevent spam. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
