7 CD set for F7?

[Les Mikesell]

John Reiser wrote:
> 
>> Maybe it's really just a lot of users behind the same gateway that just
>> found out the disk were available.  But isn't that sort of thing why
>> bittorrent was invented?
> 
> I did try torrents.  The demand was miniscule (4 or 2 clients total in several
> days); the tracker gave up [perhaps because sharing was miniscule?]
> Then I tried direct http:.  The demand was larger, but still small, for a week
> or more.  I was unprepared for the response due to the [unknown to me]
> "advertising" in the Fedora Project FAQ.  I'm trying to resurrect the torrents.

I'm not a torrent expert but I thought that if the tracker also seeds 
the worst case single-connection scenario is no worse than an http or 
ftp download.

> Looking at the Apache logs, that spate of 500 requests had a few original
> requests (http status code 200) for each disc, then an average 100 or so "resume"
> requests (http status code 206) for each disc, with approximately non-skewed
> distribution of resume points throughout each file.  Some resume requests
> for the same disc were within one or two seconds of each other, at not-near
> offsets.  That supports your hypothesis of multiple users behind a gateway.
> But why would there be a _hundred_ resume requests per file (an average of
> 20 to 25 or so per supposed user, per file)?  Meanwhile, how many bytes
> were transfered, versus requested in theory but never actually sent?

Maybe there is some bandwidth throttle on the gateway - or a filter 
blocking the content that keeps breaking the connection and the clients 
don't know about it so they keep retrying.

--
    Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com