On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Oh - and about when I said P2P was "easier" - that's relative as well. The
> new UseNet Explorer is FREAKIN' AMAZING.
>
> Just grab the whole mess of a binary post and it downloads the parts and
> decodes them. If it finds a
Oh - and about when I said P2P was "easier" - that's relative as well. The new
UseNet Explorer is FREAKIN' AMAZING.
Just grab the whole mess of a binary post and it downloads the parts and
decodes them. If it finds an error it automatically downloads the PARs,
repairs it and then decodes it.
[sorry about the dupes - website posting is acting up...]
> I'm not sure I totally agree.
People not agreeing! On the INTERNET!
Say it ain't so. ;^)
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com> wrote:
> > USENet is actually pretty bandwidth inefficient beast. "Your"
> I'm not sure I totally agree.
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> com> wrote:
> > USENet is actually pretty bandwidth inefficient beast. "Your"
> server is peered
> > with any number of other servers. Periodically your server asks all
> its peers
> > "got anyt
> 1) First, P2P - 1000 clients on a 700mb file at a 1:1 UL/DL ratio
> - 700,000mb over the public internet
> - 700,000mb over local ISP network
Whoops, just realized some of my math was wrong. At a 1:1 ratio, each
client would send 700mb and also receive 700mb. That doubles both
numbers.
- 1,40
I'm not sure I totally agree.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> USENet is actually pretty bandwidth inefficient beast. "Your" server is
> peered
> with any number of other servers. Periodically your server asks all its peers
> "got anything new?" - if so th
>Oh, and aren't newsgroups more or less peer-to-peer messaging using a
>more efficient model than regular P2P? It's like P2P with a local ISP
>cache.
Sorta, kinda?
USENet is actually pretty bandwidth inefficient beast. "Your" server is peered
with any number of other servers. Periodically you
>Online games pass mere kilobytes at a time. So I'm not surprised.
>There isn't a massive transfer of content such as Textures etc.
>normally (Second Life is an exception sort of).
"At a time" perhaps... but that's nearly constant (at least in action games).
When you've got 40 people playing in a
Yeah, that's the difference. If I pull from my ISP's usenet feed (TWC, so
not much longer, doh!), my traffic never hits the open Internet, it's all
over the cable. Now, I would be interested to see what the bandwidth metrics
are on TWC's internal network. I would expect usenet to be significantly
h
Oh, and aren't newsgroups more or less peer-to-peer messaging using a
more efficient model than regular P2P? It's like P2P with a local ISP
cache.
-Cameron
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assumed that USENet would make a stronger showing
I might actually expect it to be a smaller part of the traffic than
5.6%. Each news farm only has to download each message or message
part once. It might also send out mes
Online games pass mere kilobytes at a time. So I'm not surprised.
There isn't a massive transfer of content such as Textures etc.
normally (Second Life is an exception sort of).
All that flows between Game Client and Server, is some position data etc.
Similarly with Xbox Live games.
2008/6/24 Jim
Sandvine (producers of deep-packet-inspection and filtering equipment) have
released a report on total (American) bandwidth usage:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6572401.html?nid=4262
Here's the numbers boiled down:
Peer-to-peer file sharing 43.5%
Web browsing27
13 matches
Mail list logo
