On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM, stan<gryt2@xxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:03:47 -0700 > Konstantin Svist <fry.kun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> I'd prefer a system based on existing proven technology, e.g. >> bittorrent. It already does all this and more -- and works great for >> high loads, e.g. when a new version comes out. >> It doesn't matter where the packages are downloaded from, as long as >> they're signed (which is already the case). Some users may take issue >> with using their upload bandwidth or downloading from other users -- >> so upload-while-downloading and download-from-peers should probably be >> disabled by default, but it can be an option for the more adventurous. >> The biggest difference from BT is that the list of files to be >> downloaded is different for each user, and also that new files are >> being added all the time. >> >> > Seems like this idea has potential. > > What are the problems? Besides ISPs purposely slowing torrent traffic. > Security? Complexity for users? Confusion when new files become > available while old ones are downloading (as you mention)? Torrent speed depends upon the combined donated bandwidth of participants. Works great when you have a large pool of peers and seeders. Too few participants and you might be downloading at 3K-4K bit/sec or waiting forever to get the last piece of a file. Speed also drops off dramatically after the initial availability/offering of a file. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
