Florin Andrei wrote: > > > I would venture to say that a combination of these factors is > responsible for most cases of poor performance, even more so that ISP > traffic shaping. > > There's plenty of clueless people out there who are behind a broadband > router that's doing NAT, the router has no protocol helper for > BitTorrent and does not forward the BitTorrent ports to the correct > machine behind it - as a result of course the download speed is very > low, yet people complain about BitTorrent per se. lol :-) > > Saying "BitTorrent sucks" has a pretty high probability of being > equivalent to "my computer/networking skills suck". > Ok, Florin, I am professional beta tester and evaluator of six different distros. For this very purpose I have got even a second dedicated DSL line (both my lines run at 6Mbits/s down and 512kbit/s up). I use BitTorrent all the time except for FC5 which I downloaded at full speed DSL from a German mirror right after announcement, because BitTorrent was just too slow. http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/bordeaux-DVD-i386.torrent is just not functioning properly, there is something rotten, most likely with the ISP, where the torrent is hosted. And it has nothing to do with my computer/networking skills, believe me. Otherwise the other five distros should be slow in BitTorrent download too, shouldn't they? But they all download at full speed (which is about 3Mbit/s) at latest two hours after announcement. While I am typing this message I have running two BitTorrent test downloads of bordeaux-DVD-i386.torrent. Here are the current download rates: around 560kbit/s on one and around the same on the other line. One of the two providers guarantees even no port limitations whatsover in the service contract. So it is not very helpful to send "as an expert" plenty of mailing list member to fuzz around with their firewall-NAT-router-ports setup, when the bordeaux-DVD-i386.torrent is setup in a non-performing way. FMF
