Search Results

Search found 762 results on 31 pages for 'peer allan'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/31 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Best peer-to-peer game architecture

    - by Dejw
    Consider a setup where game clients: have quite small computing resources (mobile devices, smartphones) are all connected to a common router (LAN, hotspot etc) The users want to play a multiplayer game, without an external server. One solution is to host an authoritative server on one phone, which in this case would be also a client. Considering point 1 this solution is not acceptable, since the phone's computing resources are not sufficient. So, I want to design a peer-to-peer architecture that will distribute the game's simulation load among the clients. Because of point 2 the system needn't be complex with regards to optimization; the latency will be very low. Each client can be an authoritative source of data about himself and his immediate environment (for example bullets.) What would be the best approach to designing such an architecture? Are there any known examples of such a LAN-level peer-to-peer protocol? Notes: Some of the problems are addressed here, but the concepts listed there are too high-level for me. Security I know that not having one authoritative server is a security issue, but it is not relevant in this case as I'm willing to trust the clients. Edit: I forgot to mention: it will be a rather fast-paced game (a shooter). Also, I have already read about networking architectures at Gaffer on Games.

    Read the article

  • c# peer-to-peer networking - getting around routers

    - by The.Anti.9
    I want to code a peer-to-peer like chat program in C#. I am trying to figure out how the networking would work. I know that the concept is that each peer is a client and a server at the same time. It can connect and be connected to. But my question is, how do you connect to a computer behind a router without the port being forwarded to that computer? I know things like Bittorrent do this with no problem. I was planning on using a tracker to keep a list of peers and the ports they listen on, but I still don't understand how to get through the router issue. Could someone please explain?

    Read the article

  • Detecting wins in peer to peer RTS games like Starcraft

    - by user782220
    A typical RTS game is implemented with the standard networking model: peer to peer lockstep. Consider Starcraft 2, given that Battle.net presumably doesn't know anything about the state of game given that there is only communication between the two players in a peer to peer model, how does Battle.net know who was the winner in the end. Relying on the two peers to not try to cheat and report accurate results is naive.

    Read the article

  • SQL Peer-to-Peer Dynamic Structured Data Processing Collaboration

    Unstructured and XML semi-structured data is now used more than structured data. But fixed structured data still keeps businesses running day in and day out, which requires consistent predictable highly principled processing for correct results. For this reason, it would be very useful to have a general purpose SQL peer-to-peer collaboration capability that can utilize highly principled hierarchical data processing and its flexible and advanced structured processing to support dynamically structured data and its dynamic structured processing. This flexible dynamic structured processing can change the structure of the data as necessary for the required processing while preserving the relational and hierarchical data principles. This processing will perform freely across remote unrelated peer locations anytime and transparently process unpredictable and unknown structured data and data type changes automatically for immediate processing using automatic metadata maintenance.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Shard No More – An Innovative Look at Distributed Peer-to-peer SQL Database

    - by pinaldave
    There is no doubt that SQL databases play an important role in modern applications. In an ideal world, a single database can handle hundreds of incoming connections from multiple clients and scale to accommodate the related transactions. However the world is not ideal and databases are often a cause of major headaches when applications need to scale to accommodate more connections, transactions, or both. In order to overcome scaling issues, application developers often resort to administrative acrobatics, also known as database sharding. Sharding helps to improve application performance and throughput by splitting the database into two or more shards. Unfortunately, this practice also requires application developers to code transactional consistency into their applications. Getting transactional consistency across multiple SQL database shards can prove to be very difficult. Sharding requires developers to think about things like rollbacks, constraints, and referential integrity across tables within their applications when these types of concerns are best handled by the database. It also makes other common operations such as joins, searches, and memory management very difficult. In short, the very solution implemented to overcome throughput issues becomes a bottleneck in and of itself. What if database sharding was no longer required to scale your application? Let me explain. For the past several months I have been following and writing about NuoDB, a hot new SQL database technology out of Cambridge, MA. NuoDB is officially out of beta and they have recently released their first release candidate so I decided to dig into the database in a little more detail. Their architecture is very interesting and exciting because it completely eliminates the need to shard a database to achieve higher throughput. Each NuoDB database consists of at least three or more processes that enable a single database to run across multiple hosts. These processes include a Broker, a Transaction Engine and a Storage Manager.  Brokers are responsible for connecting client applications to Transaction Engines and maintain a global view of the network to keep track of the multiple Transaction Engines available at any time. Transaction Engines are in-memory processes that client applications connect to for processing SQL transactions. Storage Managers are responsible for persisting data to disk and serving up records to the Transaction Managers if they don’t exist in memory. The secret to NuoDB’s approach to solving the sharding problem is that it is a truly distributed, peer-to-peer, SQL database. Each of its processes can be deployed across multiple hosts. When client applications need to connect to a Transaction Engine, the Broker will automatically route the request to the most available process. Since multiple Transaction Engines and Storage Managers running across multiple host machines represent a single logical database, you never have to resort to sharding to get the throughput your application requires. NuoDB is a new pioneer in the SQL database world. They are making database scalability simple by eliminating the need for acrobatics such as sharding, and they are also making general administration of the database simpler as well.  Their distributed database appears to you as a user like a single SQL Server database.  With their RC1 release they have also provided a web based administrative console that they call NuoConsole. This tool makes it extremely easy to deploy and manage NuoDB processes across one or multiple hosts with the click of a mouse button. See for yourself by downloading NuoDB here. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: CodeProject, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQLServer, T SQL, Technology Tagged: NuoDB

    Read the article

  • Online voice chat: Why client-server model vs. peer-to-peer model?

    - by sstallings
    I am adding online voice chat to a Silverlight app. I've been reviewing current apps, services and SDKs found thru online searches and forums. I'm finding that the majority of these implement a client-server (C/S) model and I'm trying to understand why that model versus a peer-to-peer (PTP) model. To me PTP would be preferable because going direct between peers would be more efficient (fewer IP hops and no processing along the way by a server computer) and no need for a server and its costs and dependencies. I found some products offer the ability to switch from PTP to C/S if the PTP proves insufficient. As I thought more about it, I could see that C/S could be better if there are more than two peers involved in a conversation, then the server (supposedly with more bandwidth) could do a better job of relaying each peers outgoing traffic to the multiple other peers. In C/S many-to-many voice chatting, each peer's upstream broadband (which is where the bottleneck inherently is) would only have to carry each item of voice traffic once, then the server would use its superior bandwidth to relay the message to the multiple other peers. But, in a situation with one-on-one voice chatting it seems that PTP would be best. A server would not reduce each of the two peer's bandwidth requirements and would only add unnecessary overhead, dependency and cost. In one-on-one voice chatting: Am I mistaken on anything above? Would peer-to-peer be best? Would a server provide anything of value that could not be provided by a client-only program? Is there anything else that I should be taking into consideration? And lastly, can you recommend any Silverlight PTP or C/S voice chat products? Thanks in advance for any info.

    Read the article

  • Can Android do peer-to-peer ad-hoc networking?

    - by Doughy
    Is it possible to set up Android in ad-hoc peer-to-peer wifi mode? For example, I would like to have one phone broadcast a message, and have all peers in the network receive the broadcast, without having a server. I would like to use wifi since bluetooth range is more limited.

    Read the article

  • pfsense peer-to-peer OpenVPN not connecting

    - by John P
    I'm trying to setup a peer-to-peer OpenVPN between two pfsense servers running 2.0.1-RELEASE, but the client keeps getting the connection dropped, with a status of "reconnecting; ping-restart" and nothing appears to be routing between them. Both these firewalls are also doing PPTP VPNs that are working correctly. FW01 ("server") ======================= LAN: 10.1.1.2/24 WAN: xx.xx.126.34/27 ServerMode: Peer to Peer (Shared Key) Protocol: UDP DeviceMode: tun Interface: WAN Port 1194 Tunnel: 10.0.8.1/30 Local Network: 10.1.1.0/24 Remote Network: 192.168.1.0/24 Firewall Rule in OpenVPN tab: UDP * * * * * none FW03 (client) LAN: 192.168.1.2/24 WAN: xx.xx.9.66/27 ServerMode: Peer to Peer (Shared Key) Protocol: UDP DeviceMode: tun Interface: WAN Server Host: xx.xx.126.34 Tunnel: -- also tried 10.1.8.0/24 Remote Network: 10.1.1.0/24 Client Logs: System Log Apr 6 18:00:08 kernel: ... Restarting packages. Apr 6 18:00:13 check_reload_status: Starting packages Apr 6 18:00:19 php: : Restarting/Starting all packages. Apr 6 18:00:56 kernel: ovpnc1: link state changed to DOWN Apr 6 18:00:56 check_reload_status: Reloading filter Apr 6 18:00:57 check_reload_status: Reloading filter Apr 6 18:00:57 kernel: ovpnc1: link state changed to UP Apr 6 18:00:57 check_reload_status: rc.newwanip starting ovpnc1 Apr 6 18:00:57 check_reload_status: Syncing firewall Apr 6 18:01:02 php: : rc.newwanip: Informational is starting ovpnc1. Apr 6 18:01:02 php: : rc.newwanip: on (IP address: ) (interface: ) (real interface: ovpnc1). Apr 6 18:01:02 php: : rc.newwanip: Failed to update IP, restarting... Apr 6 18:01:02 php: : send_event: sent interface reconfigure got ERROR: incomplete command. all reload reconfigure restart newip linkup sync Client OpenVPN log Apr 6 18:39:14 openvpn[12177]: Inactivity timeout (--ping-restart), restarting Apr 6 18:39:14 openvpn[12177]: SIGUSR1[soft,ping-restart] received, process restarting Apr 6 18:39:16 openvpn[12177]: NOTE: the current --script-security setting may allow this configuration to call user-defined scripts Apr 6 18:39:16 openvpn[12177]: Re-using pre-shared static key Apr 6 18:39:16 openvpn[12177]: Preserving previous TUN/TAP instance: ovpnc1 Apr 6 18:39:16 openvpn[12177]: UDPv4 link local (bound): [AF_INET]64.94.9.66 Apr 6 18:39:16 openvpn[12177]: UDPv4 link remote: [AF_INET]64.74.126.34:1194 Server OpenVPN log Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[22117]: UDPv4 link remote: [undef] Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[22117]: UDPv4 link local (bound): [AF_INET]xx.xx.126.34:1194 Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: /usr/local/sbin/ovpn-linkup ovpns1 1500 1557 10.1.8.1 10.1.8.2 init Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: /sbin/ifconfig ovpns1 10.1.8.1 10.1.8.2 mtu 1500 netmask 255.255.255.255 up Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: do_ifconfig, tt-ipv6=0, tt-did_ifconfig_ipv6_setup=0 Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: TUN/TAP device /dev/tun1 opened Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: Control Channel Authentication: using '/var/etc/openvpn/server1.tls-auth' as a OpenVPN static key file Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: NOTE: the current --script-security setting may allow this configuration to call user-defined scripts Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[21006]: OpenVPN 2.2.0 amd64-portbld-freebsd8.1 [SSL] [LZO2] [eurephia] [MH] [PF_INET6] [IPv6 payload 20110424-2 (2.2RC2)] built on Aug 11 2011 Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[17171]: SIGTERM[hard,] received, process exiting Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[17171]: /usr/local/sbin/ovpn-linkdown ovpns1 1500 1557 10.1.8.1 10.1.8.2 init Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[17171]: ERROR: FreeBSD route delete command failed: external program exited with error status: 1 Apr 6 14:40:36 openvpn[17171]: event_wait : Interrupted system call (code=4) Apr 6 14:06:32 openvpn[17171]: Initialization Sequence Completed Apr 6 14:06:32 openvpn[17171]: UDPv4 link remote: [undef] Apr 6 14:06:32 openvpn[17171]: UDPv4 link local (bound): [AF_INET]xx.xx.126.34:1194

    Read the article

  • Nagios NTP, discarding peer

    - by picca
    We're using nagios *check_ntp_time* for monitoring time on our servers. Unfortunately the service is flapping. And reporting a lot of false-positives. It happens everytime for random server in random day time and lasts for ~10-30 minutes. When the problem occurs we get: watch01:~ # /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_ntp_time -H lb01 -w 1 -c 2 -v sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.07509887218 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.07508444786 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.07499825954 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.07510817051 discarding peer 0: stratum=0 overall average offset: 0 NTP CRITICAL: Offset unknown| When everything is ok, we get (I used different server to not have to wait): watch01:~ # /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_ntp_time -H web02 -w 1 -c 2 -v sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.0002282857895 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.0002194643021 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.0002347230911 sending request to peer 0 response from peer 0: offset 0.0002293586731 overall average offset: 0.0002282857895 NTP OK: Offset 0.0002282857895 secs|offset=0.000228s;1.000000;2.000000; We are using: check_ntp_time v1.4.15 (nagios-plugins 1.4.15) on Debian squeeze. Remote ntp daemon is: ntpd - NTP daemon program - Ver. 4.2.4p4 I already found some forums where the problem is described: 1, 2, 3. Every time they edvise to upgrade nagios-plugins, because in version prior to 1.4.13 there was a bug with inserted leap second. But we have already newer version of nagios-plugins.

    Read the article

  • Apple iPhone SDK Peer Picker

    - by Just another developer
    How can I modify the iphone SDK Apple sample code 'GKTank' to support multiple peers? Ideally 4. I know GKit has a peer limit of 4, which is fine. What changes would I need to make to the source file 'GKTANK', so I can learn the process and adapt it to my own current app. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the cause of exception in wcf peer-to-peer service with callbacks ?

    - by miensol
    I've been playing around with WCF peer to peer, one way operation contract and callbacks. I have a following service: [ServiceContract(CallbackContract = typeof(ICodeFoundCallback))] public interface ICodeSearch { [OperationContract(IsOneWay = true)] void Search(string searchQuery); } public interface ICodeFoundCallback { [OperationContract(IsOneWay = true)] void Found(string found); } public class CodeSearchService : ServiceWithCallback<ICodeFoundCallback>, ICodeSearch { public void Search(string searchQuery) { Console.WriteLine("Searching for :" + searchQuery); Callback(t=> t.Found(searchQuery)); } } public class ServiceWithCallback<T> { protected void Callback(Action<T> call) { var callbackChanel = OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel<T>(); call(callbackChanel); } } with such config on server <system.serviceModel> <services> <service name="CodeSearch.Service.CodeSearchService" behaviorConfiguration="CodeSearchServiceBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress="net.p2p://CodeSearchService"/> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint name="CodeSearchServiceEndpoint" address="" binding="netPeerTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="BindingUnsecure" contract="CodeSearch.Service.ICodeSearch" /> </service> </services> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="CodeSearchServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <bindings> <netPeerTcpBinding> <binding name="BindingUnsecure"> <security mode="None"/> <resolver mode="Pnrp"/> </binding> </netPeerTcpBinding> <customBinding> <binding name="CodeSearchServiceEndpoint"> <binaryMessageEncoding maxReadPoolSize="64" maxWritePoolSize="16" maxSessionSize="2048"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> </binaryMessageEncoding> <peerTransport maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" port="0"> <security mode="None" /> </peerTransport> </binding> </customBinding> </bindings> <system.serviceModel> And simple client generated by Visual studio tooling. When I run two or more servers, and client invokes Search method: search method is called on each server first server calls client callback properly second server throws ArgumentException "A property with the name 'TransactionFlowProperty' already exists" when invoking client callback (Found method) I've no idea what is going on since as far as I know transaction flow is by default set to none. Could anyone help me solve this issue ?

    Read the article

  • Setup MSSQL replication with peer to peer topology: problem setting up Conflict Detection

    - by Roel
    Hi, I'm setting up a SQL Replication strategy, using MSSQL2008 with peer-to-peer publications (2 servers, each one subscribes to the other). I followed this HOWTO from MSDN, and the setup seems to be working fine: add a record to one table on server A, query on server B shows the new record. So far, so good. So far I only have one table 'Templates': Id PK (calculated field) NodeId int default 1/2 (Server A = 1, Server B = 2) LocalId int autoid Name nvarchar(100) Now, I would like to enable 'Conflict detection', which should be enabled by default. But every time I try to save the 'Conflict Detection' feature in the Publication Properties I get the following error: Cannot save Peer conflict detection properties. An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch.(Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo) Program Location: at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(String sqlCommand, ExecutionTypes executionType) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(String sqlCommand) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.ReplicationObject.ExecCommand(String commandIn) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.TransPublication.SetPeerConflictDetection(Boolean enablePeerConflictDetection, Int32 peerOriginatorID) at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.UI.PubPropSubscriptionOptions.SaveP2PConflictDetection() at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.UI.PubPropSubscriptionOptions.SaveProperties(ExecutionMode& executionResult) Column name 'Id' does not exist in the target table or view. Changed database context to 'TestDB'. (.Net SqlClient Data Provider) For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=10.00.2531&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=1911&LinkId=20476 Server Name: SERVER_A Error Number: 1911 Severity: 16 State: 1 Line Number: 2 Program Location: at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Run(RunBehavior runBehavior, SqlCommand cmdHandler, SqlDataReader dataStream, BulkCopySimpleResultSet bulkCopyHandler, TdsParserStateObject stateObj) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteNonQueryTds(String methodName, Boolean async) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.InternalExecuteNonQuery(DbAsyncResult result, String methodName, Boolean sendToPipe) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery() at Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Common.ServerConnection.ExecuteNonQuery(String sqlCommand, ExecutionTypes executionType) Now, I googled the hell out of this error, and nothing shows up. I also can't seem to find out what the exact target table of the error "Column name 'Id' does not exist..." is. Has anyone every done this successfully? Am I missing something? Having this setup without conflict detection feels pretty useless... EDIT OK, so after some more research and setting up with different databases etc, I found out that the calculated 'Id' column of the Templates table is the culprit. I don't know why, but the replication doesn't seem to allow calculated columns (which are also primary key). It works now too, without the 'Id' column, and using the NodeId and LocalId as a combined PK. So now the question is, why isn't it allowed to have a calculated column as PK for replication with conflict detection?

    Read the article

  • SQL 2008 R2 3rd Party Peer-to-Peer Replication, Global Site Distribution

    - by gombala
    We are looking at hosting 3 globally distributed SQL Server installations at different data centers. The intent is that Site A will serve web traffic and data for a specific region, same with Site B and C. In the case that Site A data center goes down, looses connectivity, etc. the users of Site A users will fail over to Site B or C (depending which is up). Also, if a user from Site A travels to Site C they should be able to access their data as it was on Site A. My questions is what SQL replication technology (SQL Replication or 3rd party) can support this scenario? We are using SQL 2008 R2 Enterprise at each site, each site runs on top of VMWare with a Netapp filer. Would something like distributed caching help in this scenario as well? We have looked at and tested Peer-to-Peer replication but have encountered issues with conflicts during our testing. I imagine there are other global data centers that have encountered and solved this issue.

    Read the article

  • Designing a peer to peer network

    - by Varun
    I am designing a simple peer to peer network. The basic architecture will be as follows: A central server- that keeps track of all the peers. The job of this server is to keep track of all the peers that join the network. Every peer could do things: a. Download a file from it's peer b. Push a file (send a file) to it's peer. Could anybody please tell me what would be the best design for such a system? What would be the problems that i might run into and so on. I am planning to use Java as the programming language to implement. Would it be a good choice? Also, is it necessary that i would need a Linux box to develop the system? or is it fine if i use a Windows machine? Your help will be much appreciated! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Windows xp mapped drives disconnect from Windows 7 on Peer to Peer network

    - by Kathryn Codo
    I have a 5 user peer to peer network. 2-XP machines, 3- Windows 7 machines and a Windows 7 machine acting as the file server. I have NO issues with the Windows 7 machines staying connected via the mapped drives to the "server". However, once a day the 2 XP machines will not connect to the Windows 7 machine "server" via the mapped drives. I must restart the "server" in order to see the server and access the files via the mapped drives or Explorer. I have tried the persistent : yes command in NET USE, on the XP machines and also setting a static IP address on the "server". I've turned the firewall off on the "server:, no difference so I turned the firewall back on. No interruption occurs with the internet when this happens, just can't see the server. Again, the Windows 7 users are unaffected. I have gone into the advanced network settings on the "server" and added read/write permissions for Everyone as well as the users of the XP machines. I have double checked that we are all on the same WORKGROUP. I'm at a loss. It seems to happen around mid-day and I've not been able to find any activity that is happening at this time (Like someone plugging in a thumbdrive). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated as my client is running old XP software he no longer has the disks for and needs for his engineering firm.

    Read the article

  • Encrypting peer-to-peer application with iptables and stunnel

    - by Jonathan Oliver
    I'm running legacy applications in which I do not have access to the source code. These components talk to each other using plaintext on a particular port. I would like to be able to secure the communications between the two or more nodes using something like stunnel to facilitate peer-to-peer communication rather than using a more traditional (and centralized) VPN package like OpenVPN, etc. Ideally, the traffic flow would go like this: app@hostA:1234 tries to open a TCP connection to app@hostB:1234. iptables captures and redirects the traffic on port 1234 to stunnel running on hostA at port 5678. stunnel@hostA negotiates and establishes a connection with stunnel@hostB:4567. stunnel@hostB forwards any decrypted traffic to app@hostB:1234. In essence, I'm trying to set this up to where any outbound traffic (generated on the local machine) to port N forwards through stunnel to port N+1, and the receiving side receives on port N+1, decrypts, and forwards to the local application at port N. I'm not particularly concerned about losing the hostA origin IP address/machine identity when stunnel@hostB forwards to app@hostB because the communications payload contains identifying information. The other trick in this is that normally with stunnel you have a client/server architecture. But this application is much more P2P because nodes can come and go dynamically and hard-coding some kind of "connection = hostN:port" in the stunnel configuration won't work.

    Read the article

  • Can we increase Torrent share ratio using Local Peer Discovery?

    - by Jagira
    I just want to know whether this is a flaw or not in Bittorrent system. Let us assume that I am member of a Private Torrent site which requires me to maintain a specific upload to download ratio. Will this work: I create a torrent of a large file say [ Fedora Linux ~ 4 GB ] and upload it to the tracker I download the same torrent using my ID and start it on another machine on LAN or a Virtual machine Both clients have Local Peer Discovery enabled, so they will find 'em [ not via DHT ] and start x'ferring data using LAN bandwidth at LAN speeds. Though both uploads and downloads will increase, my ratio will also increase If I reiterate the entire process 'n' times, the numerator in the "RATIO" i.e Upload will become so large that the effect of downloads on ratio will become less. I want to know whether this is legitimate???

    Read the article

  • Recovering Broken Connections In A Peer to Peer Network

    - by peter
    Hi All, I am implementing a peer to peer network using WCF NetPeerTcpBinding connections. I am using a central server which itself overrides the class CustomPeerResolverService. All this service does is register peers, and publish information about the peers to each other. On my server application I can visibly see which peers are currently connected on the GUI. My question is, each peer has a TCP connection to the server. When I unplug my network connection all connections to this server are severed. When the network comes back online those connections to the server are not re-established. What do I need to do to make sure they are re-established? Here is what each of the peer to peer bindings look like on the peers. <netPeerTcpBinding> <binding name="PeerTcpConfig" port="0"> <security mode="None"></security> <resolver mode="Custom"> <custom address="net.tcp://127.0.0.1/GlobalStoreAPIServer" binding="netTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="TcpConfig"> </custom> </resolver> </binding> </netPeerTcpBinding> So what that means is that my server has an endpoint at 'net.tcp://127.0.0.1/GlobalStoreAPIServer'

    Read the article

  • GameKit peer to peer wifi without wireless router?

    - by Tim
    Hi all! Thanks in advance for any thoughts about this. I'm looking for a way to do realtime inter-app communication in iOS via wi-fi (I need about 150 ft range and don't think bluetooth offers this) and wonder about the peer-to-peer connectivity offered by GameKit which, apparently offers both bluetooth and wi-fi connectivity. My question is: must participating devices be members of an available wireless network (via a wireless router) or is this connectivity truly peer-to-peer requiring no router? I understand Wi-fi Direct is coming and would likely be an option. Just wondering if I can do this utilizing services available in iOS today. Thanks! Tim

    Read the article

  • Peer to Peer solution for LAN over Internet

    - by Coyote
    I need to emulate a LAN between some machines over the internet to play some LAN only games. I remember that there was software that could do this, but don't remember what it was called. Anyone heard of this, or know of similar solutions that won't require a lot of work? The game is fun, but not fun enough to bother with setting up a VPN server. ;-)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >