|
|
Posted by db on 09/27/05 04:32
"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rt2_e.15525$Xl2.10254@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "db" <@ .> wrote in message
> news:43389cb7$0$15081$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>
>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dx%Ze.14182$Xl2.2809@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> > Anyone that did not go down when the Network went down saved it for the
>> > rest
>> > of us. If ALL Clients went down then there would not have been any
>> > Primaries and hence any host file in the world would have been useless.
>> > True or False?
>> >
>> > --
>> > George Hester
>> > _________________________________
>>
>> Flase. They would have got it running again regardless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Cool. Then I really don't know how it works. For example why can't
> anyone
> be a Cache Server?
It might be possible in some form or another but with regards how WinMX is
currently set up; when initially starting the WinMX client it needs to
locate an address of another peer to connect to. In order to do this it has
hardcoded addresses in the form of domain names built into the client that
point it towards locations hosting peer cache servers that maintain a list
of peers on the network. I don't think it'd be practical to have individual
clients act as peer cache servers themselves because you still have the
problem of how your own client can connect into the network if it doesn't
have an up-to-date list of active addresses to connect to. It might be able
to store addresses, sure, but how many, and for how long would those
addresses remain valid (the users still online)?
> That is different then a Primary Connection?
I'd say primary connections are at least different because their online
presence is not guaranteed (might be offline; IP might have changed; etc).
> I figured
> if all connections went down primary and secondary then the Cache Servers
> would have nothing to point to and therefore the Network goes down.
I imagine that's correct, but I don't believe it'd be a challenge to start
up a network again as all you'd need would be 3 things: 2 primary clients
and a peer cache server. You manually 'prime' the cache with the IP address
of one of the primary clients. This primary client wouldn't be able to
connect as yet, you're right, because if it called the cache for an address
to connect to the cache would have no IP other than that primary's. But,
the other primary client, if that calls the cache then the cache can respond
with the IP address of the other, so then that client contacts the other and
they negotiate a connection between themselves; you now have a WPN
consisting of 2 primaries and a cache server with 2 addresses cached. If
any other clients start up WinMX then they just call the cache for IP
addresses, the cache responds, the clients connect with each other. Soon
enough you have a web of connections between peers.
> Seems
> to me that is what was hoped for by the RIAA? The devs of WinMX must of
> known we could do what we did?
Who knows.
> Could you explain it in layman's terms? Thanks.
that's me so it's guaranteed. ;)
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|