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.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old May 21st, 2002
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: September 21st, 2001
Posts: 110
gnutellafan is flying high
Default updated

I updated the protocol:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/7176
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old May 21st, 2002
Gnutella Aficionado
 
Join Date: March 13th, 2002
Location: Aachen
Posts: 832
Taliban is flying high
Default

Quote:
I disagree. This is an issue of health for the network.
Yes, but it's not as if you were passing a law or something. Your protocol is mainly about setting a common standard for syntax and semantics of the negotiation of file transfers among p2p clients, not about setting rules for the clients' interface.

In your proposal it is not a breach of the protocol not to support partial file sharing ( if it was you'd have to form a completely new network without all the older clients ), so it's up to the clients if they want to support it by default, optionally or not at all.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old June 1st, 2002
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: September 21st, 2001
Posts: 110
gnutellafan is flying high
Default minor update

Minor update 0.1.2:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/7355
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old June 2nd, 2002
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You can't do this because it's too much like freenet and will aid in the pirating of copyrighted software and we won't help you steal software!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old June 13th, 2002
Mini-God
 
Join Date: June 3rd, 2002
Location: Hell.. Literally
Posts: 241
Gamer is flying high
Default

only aids in downloading pirated material if you look for pirated material
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old June 26th, 2002
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: September 21st, 2001
Posts: 110
gnutellafan is flying high
Default PFSP 0.2 - Programers needed!

Well, time for you programmers to add this amazing feature to all the open source clients out there.


PFSP 0.2

A great thanks goes out to Tor for updating the PFSP 0.2. The PFSP is now usable and hopefully someone is willing to implement it.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/7984


____________________________

Partial File Sharing Protocol 0.2

Here, the server is the host that is providing the file, and client is the
host that requests the file.


1. Partial File Transfer

The server assigns file indexes for partial files, and allows HTTP requests
for them. Only partial requests (with a Range header) are accepted. Servers
that supports uri-res file requests should also allow such requests for
partial files. Servers should keep the file index when the file in completed
and moved to the incoming files folder.

The X-Available-Ranges header is used by the server to inform the client
about what ranges are available.

X-Available-Ranges: bytes=0-10,20-30

The client requests the ranges it wants using the Range header.

Range: bytes=0-
means the client wants any ranges the server can provide.
The server then provides the range it wants to upload using a 206 Partial
Content response. This allows the server to upload different ranges to
different hosts, and save bandwidth by allowing them to get the other parts
from each other.
The 206 response contains a Content-Range header on the form

Content-Range: bytes <start>-<end>/<total_size>

Note that <total_size> is te size of the FULL file.

If the server is unable to provide any part of the requested ranges, it
returns a 416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable response.


2. Tree Hashes

Tree hashes are not absolutely required for Partial File Sharing, so you don
't have to implement this part at first. TigerTree can be implemented
if/when corrupt files become a problem. The reason that it is in this
proposal is because Partial File Sharing might cause corrupt files to spread
faster.

TigerTree hashes are computed using a 1024 byte base size. It is then up to
each vendor to decide how many sub-hashes to actually store. Storing (and
advertising) the top 10 levels of the tree might be good decision. It would
allow a resolution of about 2 MB on a 1 GB file, and requires only a about
25 kB of hash data per file.

The tree is provided as specified in the Tree Hash EXchange format (THEX) at
http://www.open-content.net/specs/dr...e-thex-01.html /> It basically says that the hash tree is provided as a long stream of binary
data starting with the root hash, then the two hashes it is computed from,
and so on.

To inform the client about where the hash tree can be retrieved the server
includes a X-Thex-URI header on this form

X-Thex-URI: <URI> ; <ROOT>

<URI> is any valid URI. It can be to a uri-res translator, and can even
point to another host. The client can then retrieve desired parts of the
hash tree by doing range requests for the specified URI.

<ROOT> is the root TigerTree hash is base32 format.


3. How to find the location of partial files.

This proposal does not affect Gnutella messages in any way. The only
available mean of spreading the location of a partial file is through the
download mesh in X-Gnutella-Alternate-Location headers. I think this should
work very well. Since those who share a partial file are also downloading
the same file, they will be able to send alt-loc headers to other hosts
sharing the full file.

It would be good if the available ranges could be specified in the
X-Gnutella-Alternate-Location headers, but I don't really know how to do
that most efficiently. The information would quickly become outdated, and is
not very important anyway.



Spreading partial files in the download mesh will cause servants that do
not support partial file sharing to receive addresses to partial sources. I
don't think that is a problem. The worst thing that can happen is that they
won't be able to use those sources.


4. Sample negiotioation:

Here is a sample negotiation. I don't think it will look exactly like this,
but it should show the headers in action. Clients might want to request a
small range first, to get the list of available ranges. There are some
linebreakes in long headers below.

Client:
GET /get/1234/my_song.mp3 HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: FooBar/1.0
Host: 123.123.123.123:6346
Connection: Keep-Alive
Range: bytes=73826-
X-Gnutella-Content-URN: urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X
X-Gnutella-Alternate-Location:
http://theclient.com:6346/get/2468/my_song.mp3 />
Server:
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Server: FooBar/1.0
Content-Type: audeo/mpeg
Content-Range: bytes 73826-83825/533273
Content-Lenght: 10000
Connection: Keep-Alive
X-Available-Ranges: bytes=0-285749
X-Gnutella-Content-URN: urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X
X-Thex-URI:
/uri-res/n2x?urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X;VEKX TRSJPTZJLY2IKG5F Q
2TCXK26SECFPP4DX7I

<10000 bytes of data>

"n2x" above is an example. Someone should comment on what should be used.
Since the URI is provided in the X-Thex-URI header, each vendor can chose
how to provide the THEX data.


5. Issues

* A server can decide to upload only a part of the requested range. This
means that clients cannot be sure to get the file in sequential order.
* Also clients cannot decide how many bytes to download per request. Perhaps
the server should be required to upload a range that begins with the first
requested byte.

Last edited by gnutellafan; July 1st, 2002 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old July 1st, 2002
Disciple
 
Join Date: December 14th, 2001
Posts: 13
TorK is flying high
Post

Partial File Sharing Protocol 0.2.1 is now available. I don't expect there to be any big changes from this version.

This document and earlier versions of it are now available for reference at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gd...roposals/PFSP/


/Tor


---------------------
Partial File Sharing Protocol 0.2.1

Here, the server is the host that is providing the file, and client is the
host that requests the file.


1. Partial File Transfer

The server allows HTTP requests for partial files, at URIs chosen by the
server. They can for example be assigned a file index and shared at
"/get/index/filename", or simply at "/partials/filename".

Only partial requests (with a Range header) are accepted. Servers that
support uri-res file requests should also allow such requests for partial
files. Servers should make sure that the URI to a partial file does not
become invalid when the file is completed.

The X-Available-Ranges header is used by the server to inform the client
about what ranges are available.

X-Available-Ranges: bytes 0-10,20-30

The client requests the range it wants using the Range header.

Range: bytes=0-
means the client wants any ranges the server can provide.

The server then provides the range it wants to upload using a 206 Partial
Content response. This allows the server to upload different ranges to
different hosts, and save bandwidth by allowing them to get the other parts
from each other. The server can decide to upload any range inside the
requested range. This means that the client cannot be sure that the first
byte in the response is first requested byte.

The 206 response contains a Content-Range header on the form

Content-Range: bytes <start>-<end>/<total_size>

Note that <total_size> is the size of the COMPLETE file.

If the server is unable to provide any part of the requested range, it
returns a "503 Requested Range Not Available" (the Reason Phrase is just my
recommendation). If the client continues to request the same range, the
server may send a 404.
The X-Available-Ranges header will tell a PFSP enabled client what ranges it
can request.

If the client provides an "Accept:" header with "multipart/byteranges" in
it, the server may respond with multiple ranges at once. The client may send
multiple ranges in the Range: header if it sends an Accept header with
multipart/byteranges in the same header set. This is standard HTTP/1.1
stuff, but I doubt that Gnutella servents will support it. If you do not
want multipart support, just ignore it and everything will work fine.

You should, however, be aware that there can be multiple ranges specified in
one "Range:" header. Servents are then allowed to choose any range within
the specified ranges, or simply read the first range only.


2. Tree Hashes

Tree hashes are not absolutely required for Partial File Sharing, so you
don't have to implement this part at first. TigerTree can be implemented
if/when corrupt files become a problem. The reason that it is in this
document is because Partial File Sharing might cause corrupt files to spread
faster.

TigerTree hashes are computed using a 1024 byte base size. It is then up to
each vendor to decide how many sub-hashes to actually store. Storing (and
advertising) the top 10 levels of the tree might be good decision. It would
allow a resolution of about 2 MB on a 1 GB file, and requires only about
25 kB of hash data per file.

The tree is provided as specified in the Tree Hash EXchange format (THEX) at
http://www.open-content.net/specs/dr...e-thex-01.html
It basically says that the hash tree is provided as a long stream of binary
data starting with the root hash, then the two hashes it is computed from,
and so on.

To inform the client about where the hash tree can be retrieved the server
includes an X-Thex-URI header on this form

X-Thex-URI: <URI> ; <ROOT>

<URI> is any valid URI. It can be to an uri-res translator, and can even
point to another host. The client can then retrieve desired parts of the
hash tree by doing range requests for the specified URI.

The THEX data is shared as if it was a partial file. If a client requests a
subrange of the THEX data that the server does not store, and is not willing
to calculate on the fly, the server uses the same, routines if it was a
partial file where the requested range is not available.

<ROOT> is the root TigerTree hash is base32 format.


3. How to find the location of partial files.

This protocol does not affect Gnutella messages in any way. The only
available mean of spreading the location of a partial file is through the
download mesh in X-Gnutella-Alternate-Location headers. I think this should
work very well. Since those who share a partial file are also downloading
the same file, they will be able to send alt-loc headers to other hosts
sharing the full file.

Spreading partial files in the download mesh will cause servents that do
not support partial file sharing to receive addresses to partial sources. I
don't think that is a problem. The worst thing that can happen is that they
won't be able to use those sources.


4. Sample negotiation:

Here is a sample negotiation. I don't think it will look exactly like this,
but it should show the headers in action. Clients might want to request a
small range first, to get the list of available ranges. There are some
linebreakes in long headers below.

Client:
GET /get/partials/my_song.mp3 HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: FooBar/1.0
Host: 123.123.123.123:6346
Connection: Keep-Alive
Range: bytes=73826-
X-Gnutella-Content-URN: urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X
X-Gnutella-Alternate-Location:
http://theclient.com:6346/get/2468/my_song.mp3

Server:
HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Server: FooBar/1.0
Content-Type: audio/mpeg
Content-Range: bytes 73826-83825/533273
Content-Length: 10000
Connection: Keep-Alive
X-Available-Ranges: bytes 0-285749
X-Gnutella-Content-URN: urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X
X-Thex-URI:
/uri-res/n2x?urn:sha1:QLFYWY2RI5WZCTEP6MJKR5CAFGP7FQ5X;VEKX TRSJPTZJLY2IKG5FQ
2TCXK26SECFPP4DX7I

<10000 bytes of data>

"n2x" above is an example. Someone should comment on what should be used.
Since the URI is provided in the X-Thex-URI header, each vendor can chose
how to provide the THEX data.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old July 19th, 2002
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: September 21st, 2001
Posts: 110
gnutellafan is flying high
Default now available in shareaza 1.4!?

PFSP is available in shareaza. Havent tried it yet but the future of gnutella is here
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old July 21st, 2002
On Holiday
 
Join Date: July 20th, 2002
Posts: 185
Syfonic is flying high
Default

The future of Gnutella does not depend on one person or client it is everyone as a group.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 08:48 PM
LimeWire Gnutella - LimeWire This thread Refback August 23rd, 2011 05:21 AM
Partial File Sharing Protocol (???????? ?????? ??????? ?????) | ????? Mozilla ?????? This thread Refback April 26th, 2011 10:27 AM
Partial File Sharing Protocol ( ). : LiveInternet - - This thread Refback March 7th, 2011 12:20 PM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Partial File Sharing in LW! et voilą LimeWire Beta Archives 26 July 6th, 2003 02:04 PM
Organize new protocol development Etzi General Gnutella Development Discussion 3 March 16th, 2002 02:38 PM
partial file sharing and other questions Unregistered LimeWire Beta Archives 4 January 21st, 2002 11:31 AM
Release partial file sharing protocol GnutellaFan XoloX Feature Request 2 September 13th, 2001 06:39 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.