Re: [dijjer-user] Dijjer more efficient than Bittorent?
Brought to you by:
gnovos
|
From: chris <chr...@vi...> - 2006-05-16 23:46:04
|
Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 16 May 2006, at 16:13, chris wrote: > >> Ian Clarke wrote: >> >>> <snip> >> >> >> >>> Files initially come from the web server, but subsequently they >>> come from peers in the network that are caching pieces of the >>> file. For a file of 1GB, I would say that the web server hosting >>> the file might be expected to have to send 2-3GB of data in total, >>> even if there are thousands of downloads. >>> >> How is this more efficient than Bittorrent? > > > I already tried to answer that question. If my answer was inadequate > then please explain why, and I will try to clarify. Thank you for your patience. I think I may not have worded the question properly, so here goes, I understand that dijjer spreads the load differently than Bittorrent but to take your example does this mean that for a file of 1GB would the hosting web server be expected to send more than 3GB when using bittorrent as opposed to less than 3GB when using dijjer. Chris > > Ian. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job > easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache > Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > dijjer-user mailing list > dij...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dijjer-user > |