Michael O'Keefe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I have never gotten any speed advantage using
Bittorrent for anything. Ever. It's always been at least a magnitude
faster just to go get the file in the usual way. Makes me suspect that
Cox is one of the growing number of ISP's that squeeze the tube
whenever they suspect a Bittorrent stream.
I was under the impression the BT wasn't about speed, but it was about
finding things that ppl don't want distributed, rather than focused on a
single URL to download
Including Fedora Re-spin ISO's? If people don't want something
distributed, why would they distribute it? Don't you really mean it's
(partly) about people wanting to distribute stuff that they don't want
to get caught distributing?
You DL pieces of it from 20 or 30 different ppl rather than 20 or 30
hitting the same URL and snarfing all the source's B/W
I understand that. But my not being able to get stuff in a reasonable
amount of time because the sender's bandwidth sucks is no different than
my not getting it because /my/ bandwidth sucks. The net effect is the
same from my perspective: I can't get the stuff.
I don't see the point of pushing the problem from the server side to the
client side (note I said "problem" not "solution").
If the ISP is going to make it so painful to distribute the load that it
appears as if all of the load has effectively been shifted to _me_, then
what's the point of me helping out? Like I said, so far for me, it seems
to be an all or nothing proposition: in exchange for helping distribute
the load, in return I get to download a file at less than the modem
speeds of my old TI 99/4a. Kinda like driving to work only on side
streets in order to lessen freeway congestion. Everyone benefits but me.
Again, the instant case may be mooted by my own ignorance, my own
incompetence, or both.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
