Gnutella Forums  

Go Back   Gnutella Forums > Gnutella News and Gnutelliums Forums > General Gnutella Development Discussion
Register FAQ The Twelve Commandments Members List Calendar Arcade Find the Best VPN Today's Posts

General Gnutella Development Discussion For general discussion about Gnutella development.


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #18 (permalink)  
Old May 20th, 2002
Gnutella Aficionado
 
Join Date: March 13th, 2002
Location: Aachen
Posts: 832
Taliban is flying high
Default

I would skip the lines where it says the servents must not share partial files without tiger tree hash. With tiger tree you can download from those hosts as well, since you will see quickly if the data is not what you want.

Before downloading a file, always get the tiger tree hash (of the 1MB chunks) first. Then simply download the file from any location you find and calculate the hash of each new MB you downloaded, so you can quickly verify you are downloading the right stuff.

QueryReplies shouldn't contain Alternate-Locations.

Another idea which saves gnutella-traffic: Servents should not return queryreplies for incomplete files at all. - If X-Alternate-Locations it HTTP- Headers work alright, each location having the complete file, will return X-Alternate-Locations of all servents that accessed the file recently, so you should be able to gather the locations quickly while connecting to all the hosts having the file.

Servents may NOT search by sub-hash. Let's say you are sharing 20Gigs of data, that means you would have to keep 20,000 subhashes in a library and even search through this library.

When a servent requests a file, he does request all the ranges he needs. The remote servent answers with either HTTP 206 including the ranges it has and including sending one the ranges or with HTTP 416 if it cannot satisfy the request. I would prefer it, if the ranges were requested and sent by one by one.

Servents should not upload ranges of the file randomly but satisfy the ranges of the as they were requested, since I wouldn't want to break HTTP here.

Servent settings (e.g. if they share partial files by default) don't belong into this protocol.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.gnutellaforums.com/general-gnutella-development-discussion/11328-partial-file-sharing-protocol-development.html
Posted By For Type Date
Firefox : Partial File Sharing Protocol (???????? ?????? ??????? ?????) | FireFox 3 This thread Refback November 15th, 2011 07:48 PM
LimeWire Gnutella - LimeWire This thread Refback August 23rd, 2011 04:21 AM
Partial File Sharing Protocol (???????? ?????? ??????? ?????) | ????? Mozilla ?????? This thread Refback April 26th, 2011 09:27 AM
Partial File Sharing Protocol ( ). : LiveInternet - - This thread Refback March 7th, 2011 11:20 AM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Partial File Sharing in LW! et voilà LimeWire Beta Archives 26 July 6th, 2003 01:04 PM
Organize new protocol development Etzi General Gnutella Development Discussion 3 March 16th, 2002 01:38 PM
partial file sharing and other questions Unregistered LimeWire Beta Archives 4 January 21st, 2002 10:31 AM
Release partial file sharing protocol GnutellaFan XoloX Feature Request 2 September 13th, 2001 05:39 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.