Azureus Compatible DDB

[aspirine]

i Think this will help alo because there's alot of Azureus users here , and they are better peers than bitcomet , cause bitcomet is known to send alot of discarded data .

what do u think ?

[Ultima]

People have argued enough about Azureus DHT... you can search through the forum for people's opinions :?

[ScubaSteve]

this is already being discussed in numberous other topics. i do agree that the azureus dht system should be used even if its not the "standard" way of doing things. purely because of the fact azureus has an absoluately massive user base due it being able to run on multiple platforms.

[Anime Janai]

Azureus writes data into each torrent metafile. If uTorrent also made use of the standard Azureus torrent file format, it could become the de facto "Azureus Lite" because it could use existing data without doing a Force Recheck and perhaps even a set of stored clients previously seen by Azureus for that torrent.

[Firon]

they are better peers than bitcomet , cause bitcomet is known to send alot of discarded data.

I'd be lucky to get any data from a BitComet peer, let alone discarded data

[peterpaulw]

DHT is a useful feature to have, as long as it can be tured off

The Azureus implementation had about 600.000 users last time I checked, which is hard to ignore. If possible, I would prefer to have DHT in utorrent compatible with Bitcomet (etc.) AND Azureus, either as a preference or concurrently.

[Anime Janai]

they are better peers than bitcomet , cause bitcomet is known to send alot of discarded data.

I'd be lucky to get any data from a BitComet peer, let alone discarded data

Heh. I've noticed that BitComet peers are great at downloading from me but almost all of them don't upload to me. I'm wondering why such a pattern exists since the Azureus, Mainline, ABC, and Tornado users on the same torrent at the same time don't seem to be anywhere near as bad. I wonder if the programming team is trying to gain popularity by making it artificially more aggressive at downloading.

At the azurues wiki/forums, there was posted a comment about how an azureus superseeder would be taken advantage of by bitcomet. It would send the request and receive the item. Bitcomet was then alleged to drop the connection without sending anything back to the azureus superseeder. Bitcomet as then alleged to resume a connection which made it look all "new" again and ready to get a new superseeded piece.

[MechR]

I guess I wouldn't mind it supporting both, provided it didn't take too much extra code. But if I had to choose just one, not knowing the technical differences, I'd go with the "official" Mainline/Bitcomet version.

This is off-topic, but for a long time it boggled me that Azureus was the best BT client we had; You'd think that something equally functional with less memory usage could be written, but every other client was either stagnant, lacking essential functionality, or suspected of gaming the system.

uTorrent is shaping up really nicely, though Once Unicode and DHT are done, it'll have every feature I use

[Ultima]

Theoretically, the Azureus implementation has the potential to be something like 50% faster. That added with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of users using it at any given time certainly makes it much more attractive. I'm all for having the official implementation implemented first though.

[aspirine]

Sorry guys , for not seraching first ,

even though its better to have alone post for this issu , because its important for alot of people .

and also poll will give more realistic Idea on what do utorrent users want to have .

[chaosblade]

Voted 'Dont Care', but im kinda crossed on the issue. Azureus' system is a client a specific solution, so it kinda forces people to use a certain client to get better performance. Id prefer it the mainlineComet way was made the standard and everybody used it.

On that note, I wouldn't mind either.