Tracker Information:Banlist:Details:Transmission

From Depthstrike Entertainment
Jump to: navigation, search
[9:09:54am] <DWKnight> does transmission announce based on the announce interval specified in an announce reply or does it decide its own announce interval?
[1:09:02pm] <@titer> DWKnight: it usually respects the announce interval specified by the tracker
[1:11:49pm] <DWKnight> under what conditions does it not?
[1:15:16pm] <@titer> if it is too long (more than 5 minutes IIRC)
[1:16:37pm] <@titer> or if there are many peers on the torrents, but we only have a few (it asks more often until it has at least 15 peers)
[1:17:02pm] <DWKnight> most trackers default to 30 or 60 minute intervals
[1:17:50pm] <DWKnight> and announcing more frequently than the announce interval isn't recommended
[1:18:46pm] <@titer> 30 mins sounds insane to me, especially for someone unconnectable
[1:19:01pm] <@titer> it'd take hours to start
[1:19:03pm] <DWKnight> and 5 sounds abusive to me as a tracker admin
[1:22:31pm] <@titer> ah
[1:24:05pm] <@titer> I could space them until 30 or 60 as long as I'm connected to a reasonnable number of peers
[1:24:38pm] <@titer> but there'd still be a few queries at first to get enough of them
[1:24:39pm] <DWKnight> I'm working on code for my tracker to prevent hammering of trackers
[1:24:51pm] <DWKnight>
[1:25:13pm] <DWKnight> Clients may send a request to the tracker more often than the specified interval, if an event occurs (i.e. stopped or completed) or if the client needs to learn about more peers. However, it is considered bad practice to "hammer" on a tracker to get multiple peers. If a client wants a large peer list in the response, then it should specify the numwant parameter.
[1:25:39pm] <@titer> I've read this page over and over
[1:26:10pm] <@titer> but about every tracker I've seen doesn't care about the numwant parameter
[1:27:39pm] <DWKnight> what tracker packages are those trackers running?
[1:27:43pm] <DWKnight> and how big are the swarms?
[1:28:45pm] <@titer> I don't mean to hammer, but there should be a compromise between being nice to the trackers and starting the transfers reasonnably quickly
[1:29:09pm] <@titer> any size of swarm
[1:29:38pm] <@titer> I don't know what kind of the tracker they're running
[1:30:09pm] <@titer> there usually ignore numwant if it is higher than 50
[1:30:14pm] <@titer> or even 20, sometimes
[1:33:28pm] <DWKnight> establishing more outgoing connections won't help get better speeds
[1:34:35pm] <DWKnight> and with the code I'm working on in my tracker, abusing the tracker for more peers will just get the user banned
[1:38:09pm] <DWKnight> I recieved reports that this client was doing 30s announce intervals
[1:38:18pm] <@titer> if I get 50 peers, sometimes only 5 of them are up and connectable then I'm supposed to wait an hour to ask for more ?
[1:38:40pm] <DWKnight> you should be encouraging your users to become connectable themselves
[1:39:35pm] <@titer> in a perfect world, we'd all be connectable
[1:43:17pm] <@titer> I go against the tracker interval only when there is a point to do so, I wouldn't call this abuse
[1:44:02pm] <@titer> you can ban whoever you want, but I guarantee you transfers may take hours to start otherwise