Okay, so I decided it was time to upgrade my Linux machine from Debian 
"Etch" (4.0.5) to "Lenny" (5.0.3)...


Gripe #1: How to download the packages?

I don't have the Linux machine configured to connect to the internet 
(and don't intend to), so I'd have to download ISO DVD images using my 
Windows machine. Debian strongly suggests using jigdo (there is no 
serious alternative to download images, unless one would be happy to use 
BitTorrent, which I don't intend to install either).

Unfortunately, the pre-compiled jigdo for Windows won't run on XP x64; 
the MSYS environment it is based on just refuses to cooperate, all I get 
is an error message from sh.exe.

I guess I tried everything by now: Changing the compatibility settings 
for the MSYS tools; tweaking various MSYS tweakables; praying, shouting, 
swearing and cursing; re-compiling the whole MSYS environment (on my 
Linux machine, using the MinGW cross-compiler, which of course I had to 
install first...)

In the end I gave up, and powered up the old 32-bit Windows XP machine 
once more, which had proven to run jigdo just fine back when I 
downloaded the "Etch" images.

(Next problem was to burn the ISO images to DVDs; the 32-bit box only 
had a CD writer - but the only DVD writing software I owned turned out 
to not run on XP x64 either. Tough luck. Well, a freeware DVD writer 
software was quickly found on the 'net and installed, and served the 
purpose fine, so not a big deal there.)


It seems that updating was easier than some official Debian How-To 
claimed: Instead of hassling with gazillions of steps on an SSH text 
terminal ("do /not/ try this via an X-Window connection!"), all I did 
was click some menu entries and buttons in the Synaptic Package Manager 
running under Gnome, and make a few decisions whether to have some 
configuration files overwritten by new versions or keep the old ones. 
And reboot once, because I couldn't bother trying to figure out the 
correct commands to restart a few services (most notably gdm) manually.

I said it /seems/ that updating was easier than claimed, because... um, 
well... honestly I don't /know/ whether I really updated my system. It 
uses a new kernel now, and all the packages have been updated from the 
"Etch" versions to the "Lenny" ones. And - hey, guess what - I do have 
an official Debian distribution of boost 1.35 now! Maybe there's hope to 
even get 1.36 some day... :-P

If that constitutes an updated system, then yes, I apparently did update 
it...


Everything seems to be fine - except...

Gripe #2: WTF?!

After updating, two essential network services appeared broken: Samba 
(which I used to transfer files between the Linux and the Windows 
machine), and X-Window access (which I used to actually interact with 
the Linux machine... who needs a display or a keyboard on a Linux box?!).

Other network services still worked fine though (SSH, but also HTTP, for 
instance), and as a matter of fact the Samba issue was easily solved by 
restarting the service (well, the whole machine in this case, but I 
guess having restarted only the service would have done the job just as 
well :-)).

The problems with X-Window persisted though. I browsed through all the 
configuration files I could think of, over and over again, without 
finding any hint. I googled the 'net up and down. Symptoms remained, 
invariably: Xming (which I use on the Windows side) would briefly show 
the typical X-window background, then close. Even without the 
"-terminate" option. And no log file would tell me why. Starting Xming 
in non-XDMCP mode would work fine, but what I really wanted was XDMCP.

No way; the only hint I found was a bug report from an Ubuntu user. With 
a link into nowhere.

So what did I do?

Well, here I am, sitting at an X-Window terminal connection to a 
Gnome/XDM hybrid, relieved that I managed to get *some* XDMCP connection 
running (without any additional hassle as it seems), but being convinced 
that the font used by XDM is a tad too small, or would need ClearType, 
or whatever...

Linux sucks.

Sometimes.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Well, a freeware DVD writer 

imgburn is best. :-) There are a couple of proprietary formats it doesn't 
handle, but nothing used by free software.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> Well, a freeware DVD writer 
> 
> imgburn is best. :-) There are a couple of proprietary formats it 
> doesn't handle, but nothing used by free software.

CDBurnerXP went my way, and by doing the job without hassle it has 
earned itself the right to stay for a while ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Okay, so I decided it was time to upgrade my Linux machine from Debian 
> "Etch" (4.0.5) to "Lenny" (5.0.3)...
> 
> Gripe #1: How to download the packages?
> 
> I don't have the Linux machine configured to connect to the internet 
> (and don't intend to), so I'd have to download ISO DVD images using my 
> Windows machine. Debian strongly suggests using jigdo (there is no 
> serious alternative to download images, unless one would be happy to use 
> BitTorrent, which I don't intend to install either).

You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?

BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an online 
Windows if security is of concern... :)

> It seems that updating was easier than some official Debian How-To 
> claimed: Instead of hassling with gazillions of steps on an SSH text 
> terminal ("do /not/ try this via an X-Window connection!"), all I did 
> was click some menu entries and buttons in the Synaptic Package Manager 
> running under Gnome, and make a few decisions whether to have some 
> configuration files overwritten by new versions or keep the old ones. 
> And reboot once, because I couldn't bother trying to figure out the 
> correct commands to restart a few services (most notably gdm) manually.

Yeah, Synaptic is such a joy.

> Gripe #2: WTF?!
> ...
> So what did I do?
> ...
> Linux sucks.

there you go!  Linux don't like you either. ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis schrieb:

> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?

No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away 
from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/ 
actually is.

> BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an online 
> Windows if security is of concern... :)

Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux, so I 
decided to not bother about regular updates, firewalls and what-have-you 
on that box. All I wanted it for was running POV-Ray on a dedicated 
machine, without having to pay for another Windows license, and with a 
comfortable scripting environment.

Linux may have more /potential/ when it comes to achieving a 
comparatively secure environment, but I really don't believe in systems 
delivering lifetime security out of the box.

For instance, I guess my Linux system would be a big gaping security 
hole if I connected it to the internet directly. I haven't knowingly 
installed any firewall, but I did install Samba, activated XDMCP, and 
set up a lighttpd-based HTTP server which may soon host a few CGI 
scripts - all set up for ease of use in my own local network instead of 
worrying about security. Because when usability issues arise, I'm not 
proficient enough with the operating system to work around them /and/ 
avoid compromising security.

Windows, however, is the operating system I have been running for about 
a decade by now, and working with it both in my profession and in 
private life, and I imagine I have enough administrative experience to 
have at least /some/ idea of the security implications of what I'm 
doing. And besides, it's the machine that runs the OS and software I'm 
familiar with and need for my daily work and/or hobby, which regularly 
includes internet research, so that machine /must/ be hooked up to the 
internet, while the Linux box doesn't need to.


>> Linux sucks.
> 
> there you go!  Linux don't like you either. ;)

Apparently, yes :-)

Then again, I imagine I quite like Linux and Linux quite likes me - and 
that it just gets its fits now and then because I don't spend enough 
time with it... just like I get my occasional fits for exactly the same 
reason :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?
> 
> No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away 
> from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/ 
> actually is.

It's a way of obtaining files. Has the advantage that it's inherantly 
resumable, and hypothetically allows the best possible download rates by 
adaptively selecting where to download from. Has the notable 
disadvantage that it requires open ports exposed to the Internet in 
order to work properly, which can be problematic to configure.

>> BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an 
>> online Windows if security is of concern... :)
> 
> Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux.

That's a pretty logical reason, actually...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
> 
>> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?
> 
> No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away 
> from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/ 
> actually is.

It's a sophisticated form of FTP, basically. There's nothing inherently 
dangerous about it.

> Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux, so I 
> decided to not bother about regular updates, firewalls and what-have-you 
> on that box.

Really, OpenSuSE is about as easy to admin as Windows is, for simple stuff, 
if you wanted to. (Altho 11 kind of made the UI for a lot of things a lot 
more confusing than it was for 10. Not that such isn't true of Windows 
either. :-)

> all set up for ease of use in my own local network instead of 
> worrying about security. 

FWIW, the admin tool that comes with SuSE (YaST) makes saying "firewall 
everything incoming from outside the local net" very easy.

Of all the versions of Linux I've used, OpenSuSE has been most friendly in 
terms of admin.  (Even better than Ubuntu in my experience.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/30/09 16:25, clipka wrote:
>> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;) You never really used bittorrent?
>
> No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away
> from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/
> actually is.

	When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.

>> BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an
>> online Windows if security is of concern... :)
>
> Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux, so I

	And you're using Debian, of all distros?

	<dodges tomato>

> For instance, I guess my Linux system would be a big gaping security
> hole if I connected it to the internet directly. I haven't knowingly
> installed any firewall, but I did install Samba, activated XDMCP, and

	Maybe it's a bad idea, but I just use the firewall in my router.


-- 
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.

Post a reply to this message

> Of all the versions of Linux I've used, OpenSuSE has been most friendly 
> in terms of admin.  (Even better than Ubuntu in my experience.)

I read somewhere that "ubuntu" is an ancient African word meaning "I 
can't get Debian to work"...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 schrieb:

> I read somewhere that "ubuntu" is an ancient African word meaning "I 
> can't get Debian to work"...

LOL!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan schrieb:

>     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.

Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
on me.


>>> BTW, I don't see the logic behind an offline Linux in favor of an
>>> online Windows if security is of concern... :)
>>
>> Because I haven't got the slightest clue about administering Linux, so I
> 
>     And you're using Debian, of all distros?
> 
>     <dodges tomato>

No tomato airborne.

The reason is, of course, the very same: Not having the slightest clue 
about administering Linux obviously also includes not having the 
slightest clue what distro may be easiest to administer. So the decision 
for Debian was, of course, based on other considerations.

In fact, it was a comparatively simple one: It was the only distro for 
an AMD64 system that I could easily get my hands on without paying a dime.


>> For instance, I guess my Linux system would be a big gaping security
>> hole if I connected it to the internet directly. I haven't knowingly
>> installed any firewall, but I did install Samba, activated XDMCP, and
> 
>     Maybe it's a bad idea, but I just use the firewall in my router.

I don't have a router. All I have is a DSL modem, which can only connect 
a single computer to the internet at any time (using PPPoE).

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:

> >     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
> > yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.

> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
> not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
> seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
> on me.

  Why are you so paranoid about the bittorrent protocol? There's nothing
to it. The only difference between a regular http/ftp download and using
bittorrent is that your bittorrent client will also upload the same data
you are downloading to others. A paranoid person might not be comfortable
with that last idea, but I can assure you that bittorrent has been used
for quite many years by millions of people, and it has presented no
problems regarding to privacy, computer security or the like. Using
bittorrent is in no way less secure than using a web browser (and in
fact, I'd say it's *more* secure, knowing how many security holes have
been found in all web browsers during their history).

  Even if downloading via bittorrent wouldn't give you any speed advantage,
it's not like you would lose something by using it. If a large file is
available primarily through bittorrent, then why not? I see no reason to
avoid it on principle. Just download it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/31/09 07:21, clipka wrote:
>> When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting
>> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.
>
> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's

	If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 KB/s. 
Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).


-- 
As long as I can remember, I've had amnesia.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

>     If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 KB/s. 
> Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).

Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In 
reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get 
good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to 
download. (E.g., try obtaining some old version of Debian. You'll find 
it has, like, 3 seeds and no other clients, and it still takes weeks to 
download. Try getting the latest version and you should have no 
trouble.) It's not much different than the variable download rates 
single servers provide.

PS. Why is it that all known motherboard manufacturers can't serve 
driver downloads at more than 2 KB/sec??

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   Why are you so paranoid about the bittorrent protocol?

Am I?

If I'd /need/ it and still refused to use it, /that/ would be paranoid.

I don't think there's much paranoia in keeping the number of installed 
programs low by avoiding to install software I don't normally need.


>   Even if downloading via bittorrent wouldn't give you any speed advantage,
> it's not like you would lose something by using it. If a large file is
> available primarily through bittorrent, then why not? I see no reason to
> avoid it on principle. Just download it.

So I guess you're installing each and every piece of software in the 
world that doesn't make you lose anything, just because other people say 
you should because they're all enthusiastic about it?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
> 
>> You're kind of paranoid, huh? ;)  You never really used bittorrent?
> 
> No Sir; up until this day and hour, I have managed to stay /far/ away 
> from it. So far that I have not much of an idea what it /really/ 
> actually is.
> 
It basically works like this. The host site has the complete file and a 
"tracker". The trackers job is to keep track of which people "it" knows 
are doing file requests, and can pass on that information to your 
client. Your own client will then connect to the tracker's FTP, if the 
fragment needed isn't available some place else, or to one of the other 
clients. This means that if *every other* client has a copy of all the 
fragments, the file server itself can sit idle, while transfers take 
place between the clients that already have a copy.

The trick of how this works is that each fragment has its own checksum, 
so, as a result, its nearly impossible for someone to insert bad data 
into their copy. Your own client will detect it automatically. While 
this does mean you need some ports open, to allow other people to use 
you are a source, they can't use that to get into your machine, or send 
you bad files, etc. Any errors introduced will be detected in the 
fragment by fragment checks, or the complete file checksum, which won't 
match, if they corrupted the data. In general, this means less bandwidth 
to the file server, more sources, so if one goes down, even the tracker, 
as long as you are already connected to other clients, you can still 
complete the download, and the only files "shared" are those that you 
are in the process of/completed downloading, or those, in the case of 
some clients that support it, which you "specifically" told the client 
to start seeding (which means you become the tracker/server for that 
file). But, since you have to tell someone that you exist, to seed the 
file as a main source and tracker, people can't just connect to your 
machine and start doing things. They *must* have correct descriptor file 
for what you are seeding, including checksum and file list, to even 
access it.

All in all, its pretty secure, much more stable than normal FTP, can be 
resumed at any time, as long as the file(s) are still being tracked on 
the server you request from, and you can transfer **multiple** files, as 
a set, instead of just single ones. Been a "lot" of times, especially 
when dealing with dipshits like Sony Entertainment, when I wish it was 
universal, instead of FTP. I mean, who puts up a 3GB download, for a 
game that "might" be run on a system with less than broadband, then 
makes the FTP server "non-resumable"? Hope to hell the connection 
doesn't drop, or a few packets time out, or you are right back at square 
0. I solved "that" issue by... finding someone with the Plantinum 
edition of the game and using bittorrent to get it, instead.

Its very safe, has more checks and double checks in it, to make sure you 
get what you should, than FTP does, and you only really need to worry 
about someone pulling the files form the tracker, before you finish, if 
you have to stop it for a few days. And that is usually only an issue 
with stuff you shouldn't be downloading in the first place. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> 
>>     When it comes to downloading large files or ISO's, you're shooting 
>> yourself in the foot. Bittorrent is the way to go.
> 
> Why would that be? It appears to me that my local internet connection is 
> usually the bottleneck, so it's unlikely to get me extra speed. And it's 
> not like I daily download Debian distros; and my internet connection 
> seems quite stable, too. It has been a while since some download crashed 
> on me.
> 
This is not actually the case. Well, at least with Windows. For some 
wacky reason, Windows handles "multiple" connections faster than a 
single one. Don't ask me why.. So, you are getting less than optimal 
bandwidth, if its only doing "one" thing. The other issue is, if its a 
recent posting of the file(s), then an FTP server can get hit by so many 
people it creates a bottle neck. Or, you can have a server some place 
between working funky, which creates one. Having "multiple" sources, 
unless they are all crappy connections, means that, for the most part, 
you will get your data from the "fastest" of them possible, all the 
time. I would say that I manage *better* download speeds, from 
*everyplace* I have ever downloaded, using bittorrent, than I have from 
regular FTP servers, and that is true even when I have it intentionally 
throttled to 50% of my capacity.

Oh, and that is one thing you can **not** do with FTP. FTP is blind to 
how much bandwidth you use. It will use as much as it can, sans what 
ever other processes are using. With bittorent you can "throttle" that 
down to 50%, or what ever, so, if you have other things to do, you have 
give it as much, or as little, as you want it to use, while leaving what 
ever else you are doing unaffected by the bandwidth being used by it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 
>>     If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no 
>> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 
>> KB/s. Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).
> 
> Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In 
> reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get 
> good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to 
> download. (E.g., try obtaining some old version of Debian. You'll find 
> it has, like, 3 seeds and no other clients, and it still takes weeks to 
> download. Try getting the latest version and you should have no 
> trouble.) It's not much different than the variable download rates 
> single servers provide.
> 
> PS. Why is it that all known motherboard manufacturers can't serve 
> driver downloads at more than 2 KB/sec??
> 
Yeah, that issue exists. They probably throttle the "older" files back a 
lot, to save bandwidth for stuff that is more important. But.. I have 
never met an FTP site, with rare exception, which had "new" files on it, 
whose bandwidth didn't suck entirely, precisely because it was dividing 
its bandwidth between 800 people, instead of between 789 people making 
"brief" requests for new sources, and maybe 11 people actually 
downloading 1-2 fragments that where not in the P2P cloud of other 
bittorrent users yet. And, those 11 people don't stay in that state, if 
there is a significant number of downloaders, for more than 30 seconds. 
The only time you get bad results is, as you say, when the only source 
is the tracker, which normally doesn't "need" high bandwidth, or all the 
people connected to you are guys with dialup, because they are the only 
ones that can't get the file(s) (besides you), from a faster source, and 
have been trying to get them for the last 4 months. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 10/31/09 10:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no
>> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100
>> KB/s. Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).
>
> Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In
> reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get
> good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to
	
	Hence "can".


-- 
Every hard drive I've ever bought has been larger than all my previous 
hard drives combined. And this is without even trying.
--Seen on Slashdot.org

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> The only difference between a regular http/ftp download and using
> bittorrent is that your bittorrent client will also upload the same data
> you are downloading to others.

There's lots of differences, really. But they all result in faster downloads 
for everyone as well as more secure transmission. Every block is hashed, the 
whole list of hashes is hashed, you're getting data from multiple people and 
comparing it, and you can switch between providers of data to find the best 
speed. Most clients will also let you schedule download and upload speeds 
based on time of day, so you can go full-throttle from home while at work.

It's a pretty cool protocol, overall.

U'd suggest uTorrent for Windows machines.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> This is not actually the case. Well, at least with Windows. For some 
> wacky reason, Windows handles "multiple" connections faster than a 
> single one. Don't ask me why.. 

TCP Windowing perhaps. Lots of overhead in the kernel to turn around an ACK 
perhaps.

> Oh, and that is one thing you can **not** do with FTP. FTP is blind to 
> how much bandwidth you use. It will use as much as it can, sans what 
> ever other processes are using.

Well, technically, that's the client, not the protocol itself.

The box I am programming for work, when you pick up the VOIP phone to make a 
call, it throttles back all the HTTP and FTP connections it's proxying, and 
then lets them go full speed again when you hang up.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> This is not actually the case. Well, at least with Windows. For some 
>> wacky reason, Windows handles "multiple" connections faster than a 
>> single one. Don't ask me why.. 
> 
> TCP Windowing perhaps. Lots of overhead in the kernel to turn around an 
> ACK perhaps.
> 
>> Oh, and that is one thing you can **not** do with FTP. FTP is blind to 
>> how much bandwidth you use. It will use as much as it can, sans what 
>> ever other processes are using.
> 
> Well, technically, that's the client, not the protocol itself.
> 
> The box I am programming for work, when you pick up the VOIP phone to 
> make a call, it throttles back all the HTTP and FTP connections it's 
> proxying, and then lets them go full speed again when you hang up.
> 
Well, yeah. There are some managers that you can throttle as well, but 
bittorrent I think works by knowing how much is coming in and going out, 
and limiting it directly. In other words, it won't even *ask for* a new 
fragment, if the fragment would exceed the cap. The ones that do 
throttle for FTP often take an, "its sending me stuff at Xkbs, so I need 
to ignore Y% of it." You haven't throttled anything, because the server 
on the other end has no idea *why* you keep requesting the same packets, 
which is already sent, just that they didn't get their, and your FTP 
software has to constantly check that what its getting doesn't exceed 
the amount you set, and simply not send back an, "I got it.", message 
when it wants to slow things down. This makes for a damned wobbly 
limiter. lol

I haven't, myself, ever seen someone that actually limits what *other* 
applications do use. Depending if it installs as a service, I suppose 
there may be some way to manage that. Usually though, you can't set 
bandwidth priority, and the default behavior is, "try to give all 
clients equal capacity". Mind, the problem with an application that 
*can* throttle everything else back is you run into the same issue. 
Existing *standard* protocols do not have mechanisms to specify what 
amount if bandwidth you have to work with, nor do they have a way to do 
"fragment by fragment requests". This create the same jittery result as 
a client based throttle, though, maybe not *quite* as bad, since you are 
not limiting bandwidth in an efficient way, but instead relying on the 
other end to a) respond to requests to resend, b) resend at all. In some 
cases, FTP in such situations will just time out, or drop connection, if 
the server on the other end has issues, or poor settings. Having one 
client "grab" all the bandwidth means you risk increasing the odds of 
this kind of failure.

This is imho why I think for "data transfer", which doesn't require 
streaming, we need to move to something like bittorrent for *all* of it. 
The simple fact that you don't have to worry about dropped connections, 
resuming issues, linear downloads, *or* trying to throttle bandwidth by 
actually increasing the risk of time outs, failed connections and packet 
loss, all make it vastly superior, even if it didn't have the p2p 
aspect. FTP, no matter how you do it, risks all of the problems, 
including making them worse, if something, intentionally or not, is 
using your bandwidth.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In other words, it won't even *ask for* a new 
> fragment, if the fragment would exceed the cap. 

Yes.

> The ones that do 
> throttle for FTP often take an, "its sending me stuff at Xkbs, so I need 
> to ignore Y% of it." You haven't throttled anything, because the server 
> on the other end has no idea *why* you keep requesting the same packets, 

Uh, no. The client just stops reading from the kernel buffers, which fill 
up, so the TCP window doesn't get opened up again, and the other side 
doesn't get more buffer space to send into. When the client then reads 64K, 
your TCP stack opens the window up by 64K, so the remote side sends 64K.

There's no need to request the same packets. Indeed, that would be a rather 
asinine way of trying to limit how much data you're getting.

> and your FTP software has to constantly check that what its getting doesn't exceed 
> the amount you set, 

Errr, no.  If you set your download to (say) 64K/second, your FTP client 
reads 64K from the socket, then sleeps till the end of 1 second, then reads 
another 64K, then sleeps again, etc. If it gets only 32K, it can either read 
another 32K immediately, or wait for half a second, or whatever. The whole 
TCP rate-limiting backpressure mechanism keeps the sender from sending 
faster than it's being read at the client.

> and simply not send back an, "I got it.", message 

That's exactly what TCP does, along with a "this is how much buffer space I 
have for you to fill up now." It's just built into the TCP layer rather than 
the application layer.

> This makes for a damned wobbly limiter.

It's the fact that it's going thru a number of layers that make it faster or 
slower. It's wobbly with bittorrent too, because the requests have to go out 
significantly before the data comes back.  Just look at the bandwidth chart 
on a client that gives you that. You're never going to get a constant rate. 
The best you can do is a decent average over a fairly short time once the 
stream hits a steady state.

 > lol

You know, I'm constantly amazed at how amusing you find computers to be. :)

> I haven't, myself, ever seen someone that actually limits what *other* 
> applications do use. 

Sure. It's called QoS. Quality of Service. It has been built into IP since 
the first versions. If you're using Windows, open up your network connection 
properties and check "QoS Packet Scheduler" and bingo, you have something 
that limits what applications use.  The FTP client says "I want high 
bandwidth and I don't care about latency" and the IM client says "I want low 
latency and I don't care about bandwidth." And the routers in the middle 
also deal with it.

It's also why you plug your VOIP box in front of your router instead of 
behind it, for example.

> and the default behavior is, "try to give all clients equal capacity". 

Not quite.

> Existing *standard* protocols do not have mechanisms to specify what 
> amount if bandwidth you have to work with, 

It's not up to the protocol, but the client. Welcome to the Internet. :-)

> nor do they have a way to do "fragment by fragment requests". 

I don't know what this means.

> not limiting bandwidth in an efficient way, but instead relying on the 
> other end to a) respond to requests to resend, b) resend at all.

No. Go read how TCP works. If you don't actually lose the packets in the 
network, you don't have to resend any. There *are* fragment-by-fragment 
requests. It's called the "TCP Window".

> cases, FTP in such situations will just time out, or drop connection, if 
> the server on the other end has issues, or poor settings. 

If the FTP server isn't feeding clients fast enough to keep them from timing 
out, then you're just overloading your FTP server, yah. But if your 
bittorrent server is overloaded, you'll also have clients going elsewhere to 
get the file.

> The simple fact that you don't have to worry about dropped connections, 
> resuming issues, linear downloads, 

Bittorrent is a good download protocol, but HTTP has all that stuff too. The 
advantage of bittorrent is being able to talk to multiple servers.

Anyway, it's not "streaming" that's the problem, but real-time delivery. 
Neither bittorrent nor FTP handle "streaming" even if you have enough 
bandwidth for real-time.

> *or* trying to throttle bandwidth by 
> actually increasing the risk of time outs, failed connections and packet 
> loss, 

Throttling FTP traffic doesn't increase the risk of timeouts, failed 
connections, or packet loss. The only risk of failed connections is that 
connections take longer to finish, and thus stay open longer, so might use 
up resources more. But that's like saying slow-eating restaurant patrons 
increase the risk of slow food delivery - only in the sense that the people 
outside the restaurant will be waiting longer.

> FTP, no matter how you do it, risks all of the problems, 

Not really.

The only difference is that with bittorrent, the protocol is designed that 
the only way to do a download is by requesting chunks. In FTP, being able to 
restart a download, or take only the middle of a file, is an option.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:

> >   Why are you so paranoid about the bittorrent protocol?

> Am I?

> If I'd /need/ it and still refused to use it, /that/ would be paranoid.

> I don't think there's much paranoia in keeping the number of installed 
> programs low by avoiding to install software I don't normally need.


> >   Even if downloading via bittorrent wouldn't give you any speed advantage,
> > it's not like you would lose something by using it. If a large file is
> > available primarily through bittorrent, then why not? I see no reason to
> > avoid it on principle. Just download it.

> So I guess you're installing each and every piece of software in the 
> world that doesn't make you lose anything, just because other people say 
> you should because they're all enthusiastic about it?

  Right. Keep up inventing excuses why you won't switch to newer, proven
technology.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> FTP, no matter how you do it, risks all of the problems, 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> The only difference is that with bittorrent, the protocol is designed 
> that the only way to do a download is by requesting chunks. In FTP, 
> being able to restart a download, or take only the middle of a file, is 
> an option.
> 
Going to shorten this and just say that, what you describe is 
interesting, but not what you "see" as a layman, actually having to deal 
with the result. I couldn't care less, for example, if HTTP has a mess 
of things in it, it **still** can't deal with a server that runs into a 
serious enough problem that it needs to restart. As for FTP resumes, 
that only works of the damn server supports them. Ironically, half the 
"big" companies on the net disable it, so you end up starting at the 
"first" block of the file, every time you resume. Restart on those is 
"literally" restart. And I won't even get into the numerous idiot things 
they do on web sites, which are intended to do everything from make 
download managers harder to use, verify who is downloading, etc., which 
can do anything from making "all" downloads from the site impossible, if 
you are not using "generic" in-browser support, and no plugins at all, 
to causing it to refuse you, because the "client" you have making the DL 
request doesn't match the client that initiated the link to download it.

Mind, all that later stuff is pure nonsense with the web design and the 
lack of any "consistent" way to prevent a) multiple connections via FTP, 
when that is the intent of all the hoops you jump through, or b) what 
ever else they are trying to do.

All I know is, FTP is the least reliable way I know of, without a 
manager that is *far* more robust than either the one in IE, or Firefox, 
or *any* other browser I have ever used, and HTTP isn't much better, in 
"some" cases. :( We need something where the fact that the server is 
overloaded doesn't mean a) having to come back and retry 3 hours later, 
when you might be at work (or every day, in hopes the load drops), or b) 
your 5 hour (or worse 5 day, if you have a slow connection), download 
isn't going to fail 50 minutes in, every single time, FTP/HTTP or what 
ever, and the server won't resume where it left off. Oh.. And the one 
**big** issue imho.. If you have glitchy wiring, or other issues, 
FTP/HTTP can land you "bad" files, and short of running an hash on it, 
which only some sites even provide (as a separate download), you have no 
damn way of knowing if the 4GB ISO you downloaded, or the 6GB of game 
files, or what ever, "got" to your machine intact. Nothing like trying 
to download the same installer 10 times, and having it fail with, "This 
executable is either corrupt or the wrong format", every single time, 
each time an hour download. What little error correction exists in FTP 
and HTTP is in the packet level, and it simply *doesn't work* well 
enough to be certain that the file will arrive intact, when it seems to 
work at all.

Like I said, unless you need a streaming protocol, there are "huge" 
issues with FTP *and* HTTP, when it comes to having them be both certain 
to be reliable and certain to complete. That the torrent might go 
looking some place else, if the main source fails is beside the point. 
It *can*. The closest to that *at all* for FTP/HTTP is some things like 
Getright's support of "search known download sites for a link to the 
same named file", which is worthless if its not *actually* the same 
file, or version.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>   Right. Keep up inventing excuses why you won't switch to newer, proven
> technology.

You're talking like not switching would be an act of utmost evil. Is it? 
Will the world end in 2012 if I don't switch?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:

> >   Right. Keep up inventing excuses why you won't switch to newer, proven
> > technology.

> You're talking like not switching would be an act of utmost evil. Is it? 
> Will the world end in 2012 if I don't switch?

  Most likely, yes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Of all the versions of Linux I've used, OpenSuSE has been most friendly
>> in terms of admin.  (Even better than Ubuntu in my experience.)
> 
> I read somewhere that "ubuntu" is an ancient African word meaning "I
> can't get Debian to work"...

It was probably in the email signature of a Debian developer. I've seen many 
of those :)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 
>>     If your Internet connection is slow, then perhaps it makes no
>> difference. On some servers, downloading an ISO is as slow as 100 KB/s.
>> Using Bittorrent, I can max out my connection (over a MB/s).
> 
> Well, in theory BT makes it easier to get good download rates. In
> reality, using BT is like downloading anything else; sometimes you get
> good speeds, and sometimes you don't. It depends what you're trying to
> download. (E.g., try obtaining some old version of Debian. You'll find
> it has, like, 3 seeds and no other clients, and it still takes weeks to
> download. Try getting the latest version and you should have no
> trouble.) It's not much different than the variable download rates
> single servers provide.

But you're being nicer to the mirror providers, because you're not helping 
overload a single server.

Post a reply to this message