Re: Bit Torrent
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Jerry Feldman wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:58:32 +0900 Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided to download Fedora Core 2 test 2 today. But I didn't want it to take all day, and I didn't want to deal with finding a fast mirror. So I installed Bit Torrent. Interesting. I think that Bit Torrent is an excellent concept. Maybe we should plan to present it at a future BLU meeting. Indeed it is. I'd like to see it integrated into the web browser. I think that things that tend to cause net log-jams (just as a new kernel release) should FIRST be put on bittorrent. Can you imagine what bittorrent could do on a large lan, that had a small upstream? Say, some large university remote and poor enough to have a crappy Internet connection. Something to be aware of: the original bittorrent client got messy if it ran out of disk space. Bad error handling. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Bit Torrent
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Jerry Feldman wrote: On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Bob Keyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you imagine what bittorrent could do on a large lan, that had a small upstream? Say, some large university remote and poor enough to have a crappy Internet connection. I think there is a double edged sword. Within a large LAN it makes the distribution of a software product more efficient, but once you start pushing stuff out of the LAN then you could wind up with a mess. Not really, here's why: BitTorret balances your upload and download bandwidth. But this is regardless of whether the peers you are exchanging data with are on your lan, or across the Internet. Therefore, a great portion of the upload a given client is doing, is within the local area and therefore not 'expensive'. The more people on the LAN, the more this is the case. It's conceivable you could do this on a more limited basis. For instance, if you and your neighbor were on the same LAN, say for instance connected in Ad-Hoc 802.11g mode, and had routes added to each other, and were both using bittorrent to get the same file, you are essentially aggregating your net connection AND getting 'credit' for it from bittorrent, in terms of the upload/download balance. Now imagine this on a city=wide free wireless network, such as the one we're building at BAWIA. And with 125MBPS becoming the new top-speed in 802.11, this could mean some real fun (note that I don't actually believe you'd get 125, but maybe half that...still damned nice) - maybe a minute to download a whole 650MB CD! Think of this in amounts of less than a CD, but where there is a large simulataneous demand, such as for patches..even microsoft's security updates would be quick. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Bit Torrent
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:58:32 +0900 Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided to download Fedora Core 2 test 2 today. But I didn't want it to take all day, and I didn't want to deal with finding a fast mirror. So I installed Bit Torrent. Interesting. I think that Bit Torrent is an excellent concept. Maybe we should plan to present it at a future BLU meeting. Last Wednesday night my class installed both Fedora Core 2 test 2 (from CD) and SuSE 9.0 Professional (from CD). Both were done on the Dell computers in the lab at Northeastern. We installed both GNOME and KDE as well as GCC so we could install software from sources. Both distributions installed well within the class time. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bit Torrent
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Bob Keyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed it is. I'd like to see it integrated into the web browser. I think that things that tend to cause net log-jams (just as a new kernel release) should FIRST be put on bittorrent. Can you imagine what bittorrent could do on a large lan, that had a small upstream? Say, some large university remote and poor enough to have a crappy Internet connection. Something to be aware of: the original bittorrent client got messy if it ran out of disk space. Bad error handling. I think there is a double edged sword. Within a large LAN it makes the distribution of a software product more efficient, but once you start pushing stuff out of the LAN then you could wind up with a mess. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
