[NTLUG:Discuss] BitTorrent on Libranet

[Robert Citek]

On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 11:08  AM, Burton M. Strauss III wrote:
> All in all, if you are on a slow network, BT could be much less  
> efficient
> than FTP/HTTP downloads.

Well, after switching back and forth between RH FC1 and Libranet, I've  
been able to get a tracker and a seed downloader to work.  The torrent  
file is for a self-extracting zip file of the newly released  
OpenOffice.org 1.1.1rc3 for Windows.  I've been able to download it  
using BT 3.3a on OS X and with BT 3.3-0 on the RHFC1 that's on the same  
box as the tracker.  However, I have been unable to download it with BT  
3.4.1 on Libranet (Debian): 'apt-get install bittorrent -t unstable'.   
Nor was I able to setup a tracker that worked on Libranet.   I'd very  
much appreciate it if some of you would test the torrent, if only to  
see if you can connect and initiate a download:

    
http://www.cwelug.org/~rwcitek/openoffice/ 
OOo_1.1.1rc3_Win32Intel_install.exe.torrent

Please let me know what worked and what didn't (off-list).  To start a  
BT download, type:

   # btdownloadcurses.py \
     --url  
http://www.cwelug.org/~rwcitek/openoffice/ 
OOo_1.1.1rc3_Win32Intel_install.exe.torrent

Depending on your BT install you may or may not need the .py extension.  
  If you don't run Linux and need a BT client, you can find one for  
Windows and OS X as well as source code at the main BT website:

   http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/download.html

For those of you that want to test BT vs HTTP (sorry no FTP, yet), you  
can look in the folder where the torrent is for the .exe file itself:

   http://www.cwelug.org/~rwcitek/openoffice/

My experience is that there is no significant difference between BT and  
HTTP, but I'm interested to know of other's experiences.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.  I'll try to put my notes on how I  
set things up on a wiki page later this evening.

Regards,
- Robert