DCMC 2005 Filler Torrent

[Voltage Spike]

Don't leech assholes.

BitTorrent needs one port per each person connecting to you. An entire range of ports is recommended if you are serious about not leaching. Some clients use as few as 10 ports, others (btlaunchmanycurses.py) use as many as 5000.

I am pretty certain that neither of these statements is correct.

First of all, just because you have a firewalled port doesn't mean you are leeching. You are less connected, which hurts both other people and yourself, but not unconnected. If two people are firewalled, they won't be talking to each other, but they will still be talking. You could modify your client, but this will hurt your download speeds since the other clients are going to notice your greedy client.

Second, older versions of BitTorrent used one port per torrent, not per connection. Bram Cohen is not silly that he would open up 5000 ports when every other server does it with one. Newer versions (4 and above?) appear to handle all torrents with a single port.

[converge]

ok, I am a little better off now. After pissing and grumbling a little more, I decided to review my firewall logs. I was certain that the local fw on my bittorrent system was not an issue, so I grew curious about my main firewall. The connection problem to the tracker only started happening after I forwarded ports to my system. Sure enough, like the idiot I often am, I was forwarding all traffic on those ports to this box; not just inbound connections from my external eth. Stupid rule.

I still hate bittorrent (or at least the windows clients at my disposal), but a little less than before.

[dguido]

you should link to the torrent on your ibaku.net page. the forums went down and i couldnt find a link to the torrent at all. google hasnt indexed it yet i guess :-(

[alklloyd]

Hey Tierra,

Took a few days but I finally got it. Thanks for the effort. I won't say anything bad about bittorrent because of the evangelicals among us...

Al

[Deviant Ollam]

is everyone done downloading? after much outbound traffic i've settled into a period of no bits flowing and no peers connected. i'm keeping the files at their destination for the moment and can re-open the torrent if people request... but for now i'm offline. (already doing the re-encode work so that tierra has a fresh set of fixed and flawless files for next year. friends don't let friends have WMVs in their vids collection.)

[[Syntax]]

I got it after about 40 hours. Average download was about 30k. I had plenty people leeching off me though.

[A]

is everyone done downloading?

I see 6 peers (downloaders) and 12 seeders. Only uploading 4-8kb/s at this point. Tierra do you have an exit strategy in place? It will eventualy get to be only only a seeder or two and then a torrent is no longer adventagous over a webserver.

[TheCotMan]

is everyone done downloading? after much outbound traffic i've settled into a period of no bits flowing and no peers connected.

Last I heard from a "connectable" seeder::
seeds: 12 seen recently, plus 0.992 distributed copies
peers: 6 seen now, 45.4% done at 499.2 kB/s

Last I heard from a "non-connectable seeder":
3 peers connected:
27.8% completed, Rate to this peer: 4kB/sec Tot Rate from all peers to this peer ~55kB/sec
29.5% completed, Rate to this peer: 35kB/sec, Tot Rate from all peers to this peer: 249kB/sec
0.1% completed, Rate to this peer: 13kB/sec, Tot Rate from all peers to this peer: 55kB/sec

already doing the re-encode work so that tierra has a fresh set of fixed and flawless files for next year. friends don't let friends play have WMVs in their vids collection.

Excellent. :-)

[converge]

I finished mine, let it run for several hours and saw no greater than a short request for 4-6k... I killed it, but can restart it should the need arise.

Deviant, are you going to start a new torrent for the re-encodes when you're done? I assume xvid?

[converge]

I won't say anything bad about bittorrent because of the evangelicals among us...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the protocol. It has solved a few major issues that existed in previous protocols and seems very well developed.. my grudge is with the crappy implementations of it.

[Deviant Ollam]

ok, i'm back up again. i'll see when i get home how many have connected and are pulling data from me. btw... those who don't like most BitTorrent clients (and i agree that many suck) have you ever tried the original BitTornado (or the Shad0w experimental build of that client)? very few features but it rocks and rolls with minimal errors and resource drain, in my experience. (that's on win32 boxes, tho... i don't tend to torrent from nix workstations much)

[converge]

have you ever tried the original BitTornado

Should I understand this as 'not the current BitTornado'? I will have to try that, because the current BitTornado I am using, while better than other clients so far, has random fatal errors and hogs resources like a mofo.

[theprez98]

I killed mine this morning but I'll restart it for a couple of nights.

[Tierra]

Tierra do you have an exit strategy in place? It will eventualy get to be only only a seeder or two and then a torrent is no longer adventagous over a webserver.

Nothing in place still. Posting it publically (and indexed by search engines), in my experience, would require significantly more resources than what I have on hand. One of our seeders with 1.2TB/mo xfer has mentioned posting it on a webserver at one point, but other than that, there's not a lot I can do (being the same reason this was posted using bittorrent).

On that same note, my tracker shows about 90 downloads so far meaning over 300GB of total transfer since the announcement of this torrent. That's definately bandwidth my server wouldn't of been able to handle on it's own. There's one client left (downloading at about 200kB/s) currently, and my upload speed is down at half the speed I capped it at meaning we are no longer at full load.

If the collection of filler was to be posted on a webserver, we'd still have at least another 100GB transfer within a couple weeks of it being posted by my estimate. It's not as if all these clips were gathered from off the internet in the first place (with the exception of a few clips), I don't see much need to post it all again using a different protocol. If someone has the resources, and is willing to post it all, I have no complaints, but it's not going to be me.

have you ever tried the original BitTornado (or the Shad0w experimental build of that client)? very few features but it rocks and rolls with minimal errors and resource drain, in my experience. (that's on win32 boxes, tho... i don't tend to torrent from nix workstations much)

I've been using Shad0w's experimental client back before it was renamed BitTornado (they are the same). I've always run my torrents using the btdownloadcurses.py script running inside screen on linux, see below for only complaint. There was a point where the btlaunchmanycurses.py has come in handy when I have the upload and need to catch up on some torrents. I could see it coming in very handy for a lot of people here that are still putting up with Azureus when you honestly don't need to sit and watch the progress in that much detail in exchange for massive amounts of system resources. The btlaunchmanycurses.py script has enough options to keep most Azureus users happy. It'll sit and watch a folder for new torrent files, when it sees them, it'll start them up, and when you delete a torrent file, it'll stop the torrent.

the current BitTornado I am using, while better than other clients so far, has random fatal errors and hogs resources like a mofo.

I get the same random fatal errors, but have always been happy with the resources. As for the random crashing, I'm using 0.3.12 and would move back to 0.3.7 (the supposedly stable version), but it hasn't crashed enough to where it's really gotten in my way.

[Siviak]

I use BitComet... and it is the only torrent client that doesn't make me want to claw my eyes out