Bearshare already calls their multi-segment downloading 'swarming'.

It is pointless to try to give the 'proper' definition of swarming here flying in the face of what they have posted on their web site.

They have 1G x as many users as you have here.

You will have to come up with a better word for swarming.

I actaully agree with calling multi-segment downloading swarming.

I also think it is all that is needed .. swarming sounds like a lot of work for benefit that can't really be measured yet. How do you know it will improve things, not just use up bandwidth on people's clients without benefitting them?

I wonder what percentage of people never download a 'commonly downloaded' file?

I would be interested to see a protocol where this happens, but I think until it is a proven benefit for like 95% of users (at LEAST!!!) then it should not be in gnutella, which works.

I would like to see file hashes and multi-segment downloads (should I just give in and call them swarmed-downloads? It's shorter to type and sounds less technical for the users) implemented widely (>75% of users) before I resorted to implement 'swarming'. You might find that it is unnecessary (I think so :-)

Commonly downloaded files are just that, common. They are everywhere. With file-hashes, you will be able to find them in an instant. With multi-segment downloads you will download from many many sources at once. How does it improve things to make some people's clients download even more copies of these files (partially)? Like I said, the benefit is so far unmeasured.

I am not just arguing against it, I am curious to see it, but I think realistically once hashes and ms downloads are wide, then it will be put on a low priority and eventually won't happen (in most clients anyway).

So I think it is OK to call ms downloads 'swarming' and just give up on the other idea. :-)