Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > dev > Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol

Project highlights: Stable Version: 1.6.1, Development Version: 1.7.6

Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol


Author hunterm
Full name Hunter Matthews
Date 2003-04-23 08:03:28 PDT
Message On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 19:15, Tom Jennings wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 16:44, John Berninger wrote:
> > First, attempting to integrate two transport methods for package
> > distribution into a single server would be a nightmare. The Current
> > server no longer does /any/ package or header transports - all of that
> > is entirely handled by Apache.
> Yes, and BitTorrent fits with this scheme; BitTorrent is inherently URL
> based and driving it from http header data is just fine. Talking this
> over with BitTorrent's developer (Bram Cohen) the most we believe we'd
> need from Current is a hook such that we could see/intercept the headers
> passed to apache.

See below.

> > Second, we're having a hard enough time keeping Current updated
> > with new versions of the client as it is - adding support for a modified
> > client would increase the complexity to a level that I personally am not
> > willing to work on.
> Absolutely no additional requirement to support any other client is
> requested or needed. I assume you (royal you) would test against the RH
> client -- period.
> I will modify the client to BitTorrent-enable it; "BitTorrent" would be
> added to mentioned capabilities in sent headers, and the downloaded file
> would be examined for mime type and if a BitTorrent file received,
> download the actual file with BitTorrent code before returning to the
> calling code. The modified client will work with RHN, Current, or
> BT-enhanced Current, eg. all combinations of clients/servers remain 100%
> compatible and functional.

You're committing to supporting any client changes on all releases?

Thats a tall order. I'm not saying it can't be done, but thats not a
small amount of work.

> > Third, and perhaps most important from my point of view, using
> > up2date / Current for this apprach just seems wrong to me; the behavior
> > of multiple repositories you're looking for doesn't offer any real
> > advantages that I can see over what up2date / Current provides. In
> > addition, if you really want multiple repositories, you should probably
> > look at how Debian's apt-get works; what it seems to me you're trying to
> > do is re-write apt-get to use the up2date command. It'd be easier to
> > just "ln -s up2date apt-get".
> The sorts of use we envision for Current is different from your intended
> use, I believe, more for distributing a small number of packages in a
> reliable, trustworthy, efficient and automatic way, instead of "I think
> I'll go check for the latest package at Mary's site". In other words,
> extending the up2date schema of secure, automated efficient downloads to
> generalized software distribution.
> A small test example of the use of multiple repositories is, I put the
> latest up2us on my Current server, zero.wps.com. When I invoke it with
> "up2us --update" it up2dates from redhat, then zero, downloading and
> installing all packages from each repository. Clearly this could be
> extended.

I didn't mention it before, because I wanted to check with the owner of
that project before saying anything - but have you looked at Yum? It's
inheirantly multi-server, and seems a better match for what you're
trying to do.

But see below as well.

> A hard example of BitTorrent's usefulness is RedHat's recent release of
> the RH9 ISOs. RH9 was pre-announced to entitled users, and Bram made it
> available via BitTorrent. Bother were mentioned on slashdot. RH's
> servers keeled over under the onslaught (I personally attest to that)
> and the BitTorrent-enabled server stayed up 100%. You can see the direct
> vs. P2P transfer statistics here: http://f.scarywater.​net/postmortem/
> The first graph, showing direct (from server) downloads vs. leechers
> (peer to peer) are clear.
> I do realize you are working your butts off just keeping up with your
> own work, and it's appreciated. Current is great software. I want to
> generalize its usefulness, and at the same time avoid adding *any* load
> to you or Hunter. I believe we can do that with a little planning.
> Again, thanks for your time, and sorry for the long reply.

John's uncomfortable with it, and in general, so am I. But at this
point, thats primarily because we haven't seen it.

The fairly unstated policy for current in the past has been the same as
the IETF

We believe in rough consensus and running code.

So if you come up with some sane patches/changes to current, that don't
increase John's or my maintenence duties, then it would probably go in.

We don't ship a client, but again for sane changes we could add them to
a contrib directory or something.

I guess what I'm trying to say is

a) look at whether current or yum is closer to what you want to do
b) send patches.

We can talk about it then.

> tomj
Hunter Matthews Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioScience 145/244 Duke Univ. Biology Department
Key: F0F88438 / FFB5 34C0 B350 99A4 BB02 9779 A5DB 8B09 F0F8 8438
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the internet.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@curr​ent.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help at current dot tigris dot org

« Previous message in topic | 4 of 6 | Next message in topic »


Show all messages in topic

Current server and BitTorrent protocol tomjennings Tom Jennings 2003-04-21 12:39:23 PDT
     Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol jwbernin John Berninger 2003-04-21 16:44:38 PDT
         Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol tomjennings Tom Jennings 2003-04-22 16:15:22 PDT
             Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol hunterm Hunter Matthews 2003-04-23 08:03:28 PDT
                 Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol tomjennings Tom Jennings 2003-04-23 11:58:35 PDT
         Re: Current server and BitTorrent protocol tomjennings Tom Jennings 2003-04-22 16:17:55 PDT
Messages per page: