IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ledbat] Note well on the BitTorrent problem on the example...

Stanislav Shalunov <shalunov@shlang.com> Sun, 23 November 2008 03:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ledbat-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tana-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tana-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1F73A67DF; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ledbat@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ledbat@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108E03A67DF for <ledbat@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQ21nXMwufEY for <ledbat@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DE63A67A3 for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so1748130wfd.31 for <ledbat@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.144.16 with SMTP id r16mr1023855wfd.77.1227411671711; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.103? (c-67-188-243-194.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.243.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm4986036wfd.24.2008.11.22.19.41.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <80ECA117-243B-49E0-954D-1EF9434E6965@shlang.com>
From: Stanislav Shalunov <shalunov@shlang.com>
To: ledbat@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <27294E60-8183-47F5-9672-D712E4D85493@icsi.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:41:08 -0800
References: <27294E60-8183-47F5-9672-D712E4D85493@icsi.berkeley.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Subject: Re: [ledbat] Note well on the BitTorrent problem on the example...
X-BeenThere: ledbat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the LEDBAT WG <ledbat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ledbat>
List-Post: <mailto:ledbat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat>, <mailto:ledbat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ledbat-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ledbat-bounces@ietf.org

My example was about running a single uploading TCP connection, not  
about running BitTorrent.  Running BitTorrent is somewhat harder to  
analyze because of multiple connections and an aggregate macro-scale  
rate limit.

On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Nicholas Weaver wrote:

> A network with only 128 Kbps uplink, >1.5 Mbps downlink (a 10-1  
> download/upload ratio) is not suitable for P2P anyway,

Incorrect.  The typical cheapest broadband connection is suitable for  
running P2P.  BitTorrent works fine on it, with the expected speeds.

The 10:1 down:up ratio is typical for home connections.  More  
expensive connections can often have even higher ratios.

> it really should be "leech only",

"Should"?  It clearly gets higher download rate for young swarms with  
uploading.  Even in the most selfish interpretation it shouldn't be  
leeching only.

> as it contributes nothing to the P2P system in practice.

Incorrect.  It contributes close to 128 kb/s, which is not nothing.

--
Stanislav Shalunov



_______________________________________________
ledbat mailing list
ledbat@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ledbat

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email