2008/4/15, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Bård Dahlmo baard@dahlmo.no wrote:
The person requesting it said he had trouble downloading large files due to unstable internet connection. Using bittorent was better, as it has builtin support for partial downloads.
So does HTTP 1.1. You just need a decent browser. (Which, yes, excludes Firefox 2 without extensions, although Firefox 3 supports partial downloads out of the box.)
Or, if using Unix, the simple but efficient wget will do.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: I think that the advantage of BT is not the speed, but the fact that it handles data corruption far better (but slower) than HTTP.
In principle, TCP should ensure reliable byte-for-byte delivery, but that's in principle. :) I'd be interested to know if BitTorrent is significantly more reliable than HTTP in practice.
Surely BT will check that the file you get is the same than the seeded one. But it is not "more reliable" than a direct download : you don't know if the seeded file matches the original file. The user sharing it likely downloaded it using HTTP : in this case using BT or a direct HTTP download gets you as much chances to get corrupted data.