Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Azureus Introduces DHT Layer

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Postby Wolffi » Fri May 06, 2005 11:29 am

jimilarue wrote:Why people don't have atleast a gig of memory in this day in age baffles me.

Stop complaining bitch


Computers having a large amount of memory is no excuse for writing memoryhogging programs.
Wolffi
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:19 pm

Postby LxBeast » Fri May 06, 2005 12:00 pm

For me the new Azureus has not only been more stable, but also less resource hungry.

Personal experience differs from person to person though...
LxBeast
 

Postby LANjackal » Sat May 07, 2005 3:00 am

LxBeast wrote:For me the new Azureus has not only been more stable, but also less resource hungry.

Personal experience differs from person to person though...


I suppose it's a good program, but I haven't had a good experience with it at all. It refused to work even when I forwarded every necessary port I could think of on my router. BitLord, on the other hand, works perfectly behind a NAT firewall without any configuration required by the user.

Still, the addition of the DHT layer is a big development, and Azureus' dev team deserves a good pat on the back. Hopefully other clients will incorporate this functionality soon.
Follow me around the internet!
[Windows 7 Pro x64 (Primary OS)
User avatar
LANjackal
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: Various networks. In the physical world I'm an adaptive AI that pretends to be human

Postby JunqueMan » Sat May 07, 2005 4:43 am

LANjackal wrote:I suppose it's a good program, but I haven't had a good experience with it at all. It refused to work even when I forwarded every necessary port I could think of on my router. BitLord, on the other hand, works perfectly behind a NAT firewall without any configuration required by the user.


Make sure you have the latest version of Java installed. I thought I did, and I didn't, and it would just not connect untill I installed jre-1_5_0_03-windows-i586-p.exe then it worked perfectly. In fact earlier today I was getting a d/l speed of 202kB/s with over 300,000 users online.

It's a little resource hungry, but what the hell, it's Java based. :)

Junque Man
"Pass me another cold Pawtucket Patriot..."
User avatar
JunqueMan
 
Posts: 2727
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: The Drunken Clam

Postby duey » Sat May 07, 2005 10:01 am

LANjackal wrote:I suppose it's a good program, but I haven't had a good experience with it at all. It refused to work even when I forwarded every necessary port I could think of on my router. BitLord, on the other hand, works perfectly behind a NAT firewall without any configuration required by the user.


Also that have UPnP support built-in as well (as a plugin). I can't remember if it's enabled by default, so go to Tools, Options press the + beside Plugins in the list then UPnP and check "Enable UPnP".

Oh, and, yes the latest version of Java is a BIGGIE. :)

Duey
duey
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:10 am

Rant Time.

Postby StopAndThink » Sun May 08, 2005 2:54 pm

I got so pissed when I saw that post by poles_apart. I'm going to direct this at you poles_apart, but obviously it's not about just you. It's a widespread problem. But I really hope you can consider what I'm about to say.
First, let me repeat what you wrote.

Will DHT cause problems for private trackers by allowing
peers to download a torrent without registering? I know
of certain clients being banned by trackers because they
share peer information directly with other peers. I think
the reason usually given is that the unregistered users
don't contribute to the share ratio of the registered ones.


Well this ratio cop mentality is so out of place in P2P. This is a total hold over from the warez FTP scene where it may have made sense however things have changed and it just doesn't belong and it's so screwed up how common it is.
Here's the problem:
Particularly responsible users are generally going to be ones who have torrified their bittorrent clients. And if you think about it, the users who have torrified their clients are probably much more likely to share because they're don't need that hit-and-run mentality.
Now, a tracker that takes a cop attitude and wants to verify your IP is going to reject all the torrified users! This is totally backwards. They should be getting priority, but they're blocked out instead.
If DHT gets us past this assinine, backwards power trip game then it's a major step forward, not a problem.
The one that really burns my ass is Kray's Tracker. I mean it's supposed to be all about punk and they want to play cop games. WTF?
StopAndThink
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 2:29 pm

Postby poullos » Sun May 08, 2005 3:02 pm

poullos wrote:We had a similar topic about a month ago about bitcomet being banned from private trackers because of the request of peers beyond the tracker's swarm.

This a document from azureus official site on how to create torrents and add a value that disables DHT for the specific torrent:

Secure Azureus Torrents

Tracker sites wanting to ensure that Azureus only obtains peers directly from the tracker itself (i.e. no DHT or peer exchange usage) should embed the key "private" with the value "1" inside the "info" dict of the .torrent file:

infod6:lengthi136547e4:name6:a............7:privatei1ee

Azureus clients, upon seeing this flag set, will disable any sort of external peer exchange for that torrent; meaning only peers given out by the tracker will be used, even if that tracker goes down, as it is normally today.

This new field will be ignored by other BT clients, so it does not break compatibility as long as they've properly implemented the BT spec. Also, this new field WILL change the torrent's infohash, which means that torrents made without the secure flag aren't compatible with torrents made with it. If you update all the torrents on your web site, you will have to ask users to re-download the torrent files in order to let them connect to your tracker.

The Azureus Team recommends only using this flag for new torrents, as it'll provide a smooth transition for your users.



Source


I'm quoting my previous post about private tracker's tweaking with azureus torrents. If you use the instructions correctly you should not have a problem with peers outside the tracker entering the swarm.

EDIT: btw, anyone's recognised in azureus JPC btcache? Mine is null. I want to see how this thing works and how efficient?
¯\(º_o)/¯
User avatar
poullos
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:29 am
Location: Mobile Server

Yes, but why?!

Postby StopAndThink » Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 am

Well that's great. I mean thank God there's a workaround to keep things all screwed up. Let's hope all the power tripping control junkie wannabee cop admins out there catch this key tip on how to enforce their petty whims on sharers.
StopAndThink
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 2:29 pm

Postby MKrmec » Thu May 12, 2005 5:06 pm

There are some problems with 2.3.0.0 version of Azureus so I can't wait for the next one!!
User avatar
MKrmec
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 8:42 am

Postby Allied » Mon May 16, 2005 5:15 pm

Any programmers want to answer this question...

Could another BitTorrent app tap into this DHT system?

Say BitTornado went to sourceforge, got the code for Azureus's DHT system. Then translated it into python.
Could BitTornado then download from a Azureus user tracking the torrent when the origional tracker goes down?
Allied's Review:
Recommended: LimeWire | Ares | Shareaza | eMule | KCeasy
Not Recommended: Morpheus | Kazaa | eDonkey2000 | Manolito | iMesh
User avatar
Allied
Mostly Harmless
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:23 pm
Location: Behind You Shoe Size: 11.008 BitTorrent: µTorrent Nationality: Canuckian Newsgroups: GrabIt

Previous

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com