how does Partial File Sharing compare to Bit Torrent?

[sdsalsero]

Over the past several months, I've almost totally abandoned LW in favor of Bit Torrent. BT is just so fast! True, BT downloads are only available for a limited time, but you can definitely get them while they're current. This is far preferable to LW and the other Gnutella clients, where I rarely get a search result (I've been trying to download Firefly episodes for FOREVER) and then I rarely get a successful download, at least for large files.

The beauty of BT -- for those who haven't used it -- is that the uploader doesn't have to send a complete copy of the file to every downloader. Instead, there's a "tracker" which keeps track of all the IPs that are downloading the file and shares that info amongst all the downloaders. The downloaders then coordinate amongst each other to swap the file 'chunks' that they're each missing. This clearly reduces the load on the original uploader.

Now, I know that LW has a new 'Partial File Sharing' protocol but I haven't seen any detailed explanation of it. My suspicion is that it merely allows someone with an incomplete download (like me with Firefly) to share what little they have with others. So, there are probably lots of people who, like me, have 1-2% of various Firefly episodes. Is there any plan to implement a more BT-like protocol, e.g. where LW tracks the IP of all downloaders and redistributes it to new downloaders? I know, I know, there's an obvious privacy concern there, but I really think this is what is necessary to improve the performance of the network. Maybe it could be implemented as an optional feature -- forgo privacy for better downloads.

P.S. I think the BT protocol is open-source so it might be possible to graft it onto LW? Shouldn't be more than an hour or two of work, I'm sure!

P.P.S. Maybe this could be a feature to differentiate the free and Pro versions of LW, i.e., "Limewire Pro now offers high-speed Bit Torrent file-transfers!"

[stief]

Looks like this idea is being discussed by the GDF developers . Sounds good, but looks like proprietary/open source issues are involved. Dang.

[sdsalsero]

cool, thanks for the link. I don't understand why they think BT is proprietary, though. It's being developed as a Sourceforge.net project,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bittorrent/
and it's labeled "Public Domain".

It's also interesting to hear about the similar "Swarmcast" protocol they're considering. I'd never heard of it before but now Í see that there are several Swarmcast projects on Sourceforge, too.

Any idea what time-frame for any/either of these to be implemented?

[stief]

sorry, I don't have any idea. I'll keep watching though. Perhaps Sam or one of the others who can follow code developments might have a better sense of all these promising discussions. I keep sensing a lot of interest in inter-networking possibiliities.

[sdsalsero]

I just think it's incredibly exciting to consider the addition of a 3-position Performance/Privacy slider: Fast (swarmed, shared-IP); Balanced (traditional Gnutella); Private (proxied). Do the developers all seem to agree on this general goal (independent of the swarming technology)?

[sleepey]

shh guy keep the free lime wire v good game ranjer was good then thay did this and more now i dont like it so moch ( what am i saying it ruls but i play warcraft 3 most now)

[trap_jaw4]

Originally posted by sleepey
shh guy keep the free lime wire v good game ranjer was good then thay did this and more now i dont like it so moch ( what am i saying it ruls but i play warcraft 3 most now)

Dude, either stop posting here till your sober again or you stop smoking whatever you were smoking.