Re: [dijjer-user] Dijjer more efficient than Bittorent?

[chris <chr...@vi...>]

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
>