Jump to content
Forumu Destekleyenlere Katılın ×
Paticik Forumları
2000 lerden beri faal olan, çok şukela bir paylaşım platformuyuz. Hoşgeldiniz.

BitComet ve ban(Eğet torrent kullanıyorsanız kesinlikle okuyun)

GERGE

Son yazan: GERGE
yeri: İnternet

 Paylaş

Öne çıkan mesajlar

Venator Proficient

Venator

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
Burada superseed ile ilgili bir arkadaşın yazdığı yorum da var zaten, onu da ekliym çok güzel açıklamış olayı.

Superseed

This quote sums it up nicely:

“The way super-seed works is it discovers which peers are sharing data the most efficiently”

That’s a fascinating remark. How could it possibly discover that? How could one client know what all the other clients are doing, who they’re connecting to, and how they’re distributing data?

It can’t. There’s no mechanism for demanding status reports from other clients, and if there were, I’d want it disabled STAT, not least because it’s wasting my bandwidth. And who would bother to write all the code to do that, for no benefit?

That might be what super-seed wishes it could do, but that’s not what it actually does. The reality falls far short.

A super-seed sends you one piece, then it waits and won’t send you a second piece until somebody ELSE offers it that first piece it sent to you. This establishes that you did share the piece, since somebody else now has it and is offering it.

That’s all it does, because that’s all that it CAN do, and all the rest is wishful thinking. “Most efficient data-sharer?” In a perfect, homogenous network, MAYBE that’s equivalent. I don’t know. Nobody’s every seen a perfect, homogenous network on the Internet.

But the basic idea is still, “I’ll give you another piece when I see that you shared the last one.” Now, if you’ve done that, and done it correctly, then it’s not possible to “game” it or “cheat”. Not unless whoever actually implemented it screwed up badly. Let’s look. He says,

“When BitComet games super-seed, it induces the seed into thinking that the BitComet peer is very efficient at spreading data.”

How? How can any client induce another into thinking that? The SS either was offered piece X by another peer, or was not. There’s no middle ground, no third state, here.

We have three clients. Sigma is the super-seeder, while alpha and beta are peers.

Sigma gives a piece to alpha, and won’t give alpha another piece until alpha has shared the first one. So alpha sends the piece to beta. Beta offers that piece to sigma, who now knows that alpha has shared it, so allows alpha another piece.

How can alpha somehow “induce” sigma into thinking that piece X has been shared when it has not? The system simply does not contain any way to do that, unless the ss algorithm or its implementation is horribly flawed. Sigma is not relying on alpha to say “I’ve shared piece X” — BT has no mechanism for doing that, and we don’t ever want it to have a mechanism for doing that — sigma is waiting for somebody else, in this case beta, to say “I’ve got piece X, do you want it?” — part of a normal BT peer negotiation– as evidence that alpha has shared piece X. If beta doesn’t say that, then sigma thinks alpha has not shared, and won’t give alpha another piece.

This isn’t difficult or technical. If someone can’t explain, simply and clearly, how this gaming is being accomplished, you know they’re blowing smoke in your eyes.

I said that the network was not homogenous. There are “clumps” of peers who are connected to each other, but only one or two of them are connected to any of the peers in that other clump over there. The members of one clump share pretty efficiently among themselves, but diffusion between one clump and the other clump is much less efficient.

(This is the very issue that plagues PEX, the alternative to DHT.)

It means that alpha might be sharing its little heart out among members of its own clump, but none of them happen to connect to sigma. So even though alpha is sharing all that anyone could wish for, sigma does not, can not, become aware of any of that traffic. This is where the nice theory meets the ugly reality. This is where “knowing who is sharing data most efficiently” becomes an impossibility.

The persistent notion that BitComet doesn’t share, is just plain stupid. All BT clients choose their connections and their trading based on whoever gives them the most pieces, the fastest and most reliably. It’s a mutual agreement, continuously renegotiated. If your client doesn’t share with mine, you go to the bottom of my list, and mine won’t share with yours. If you don’t give, you don’t get. So if BC really behaved like that, downloads would be far faster with any other client, and nobody would use BC. It would have died out long ago.

Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
SturmVogel Proficient

SturmVogel

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
Silphatos said:
azureus iyidir.


+1
hocamsın

Kane&Lynch said:
utorrent ftw



bit comet ve u torrent yüzünden hatalı inen ve tekrar indirmek zorunda kaldığım bölümlerin haddi hesabı yok (Sadece Gundam 0083'ün 6. bölümünü 4 kez indirdim ve her seferinde mutlaka ayrı bir yerden takılma yapıyordu, aynı sunumdan Azureus'la çektim hiçbir sahnede takılma çökme yapmadı)

u torrent & bitcomet epic fail
Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
Karag8z Experienced

Karag8z

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
Bittorrent sanki fake upload yapıyormuş gibi geldi bana. utorrentte bittorrente göre yavaş. ama nedense ikiside aynı sürede aynı dosyaları indirdiler. bir farkla. bittorrent e göre kendisi 300-400 mb arası fazla indirmiş yüklemiş. bu nedenle fake upload diyorum zaten. benden kaynaklanan bir şey değil.
Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
 Paylaş
Konu listesine dön
×
×
  • Yeni Oluştur...