[spyras]

Devil Doll, on Jun 11 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

Interesting thread. (It was good to follow the URL from the MorphXT 10.0 Changelog and to pay a visit here, after having been away for so long.)

Having been a long-time fan of the WebCache concept (and at the same time not making use of it due to my focus on rare files...) I now voted "no" in this poll. The modders' points about the abuse of open proxies are well made IMHO. At the same time, I expect some Polish mod to continue supporting WebCache - they will do the maths of being blacklisted as evildoers vs. creating their own community and benefitting from it, and likely go for it anyway. If they focus on Polish content then the "dying out" effect might not even apply to them.

Yes @devil, youre right. It's easy to create a patch on exe file to cancel the effects of 3th september (its almost done).
We do the math, so we dont want to move on newer versions emule (with no wc).
I dont care about beeing banned, because my dl from ppl who can potentially ban me is less than 2-3%. That is why i'll take the risk

spyras

This post has been edited by spyras: 13 June 2007 - 06:05 AM

[LorenzoC]

Question is:
Instead of bugging the ed2k/kad network with another "mod-for-downloaders" and have it hammering proxies, why don't you set up a Torrent tracker in Poland or whatever you want? We are speaking of a local community of downloaders that are being logged anyway because they will focus on the same proxy. Tha tracker would work better than the WebCache. And there is no need to ban anybody.

Regards.

[spyras]

There are lot of BT trackers (of course the best are with ratio, and the number of users are limited to 10-30k), so I (and any other) use it as well.
To be onest: 50% rels which I spread around ed2k network comes from BT.
It's just normal, that scene releases (in 99%) are first in BT network. Unfortunatelly good BT trackers have limited number of users. This kind of limitations is not present in ed2k network. That is why I often copy releases from BT network to ed2k.

spyras

[LorenzoC]

I can't see any difference in focusing people on a proxy for the WebCache and focusing the same people on a community tracker.

This of course if it is true in Poland there is a "state" proxy that is happy to cache Emule's traffic.
Otherwise we are speaking again of stealing bandwith and hardware from open proxies and then why you don't use a community/leecher mod instead then? At least with a community/leech client you damage only the ed2k/kad network leaving the rest of the Web alone.

[spyras]

LorenzoC, on Jun 13 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

I can't see any difference in focusing people on a proxy for the WebCache and focusing the same people on a community tracker.

This of course if it is true in Poland there is a "state" proxy that is happy to cache Emule's traffic.

Yes @LorenzoC - it's exactly as you wrote. When i use wc i have "big virtual pipe" which can be used by others who use this wc. I'ts not possible in BT.
That is why I'm able (even my 1Mbit up) to spred 10-15 DVD's/month over ed2k AND save proper ratio on BT. In case of lack wc, i'd be able to spread maybe 3-5 DVD's/mont.

spyras

[LorenzoC]

I am pretty sure there is a caching system for BT as well and probably works much better than the WebCache that is some wind of workardound and not finished software.
Anyway, please if you can, tell those who want to develop the polish mod to hardcode the polish proxy and do not leave the proxy settings user defined. I guess this way there would be no reason for a reaction.

[eFLASH]

[quote name='EvolutionCrazy' post='892751' date='Jun 12 2007, 10:41 PM']

eFLASH said:

PeerCache is from PeerApp, OverCache is from Oversi and CacheLogic is the third one..
as far as I know

This post has been edited by eFLASH: 14 June 2007 - 08:54 AM

0

• Back to top
• Reply
• MultiQuote

[LorenzoC]

OT
eFLASH, have you noticed you are wasting pages for useless quoting? That is the wrong way to post on every board I know. I suggest you to do no quote at all or quote the bare minimum necessary to answer.

Thanks.
/OT

[Dexter_prog]

I live in Argentina and my ISP (Fibertel) uses Webcache and limits connections, ports and other things. I can't really tell if this feature benefits me because I don't know how it works, but just wanted to say that my ISP uses webcache.

[jesusshared]

OK, so the majority of users want to have Webcache.

On Wikipedia Germany there is an article about webcache: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcache
and it says that the idea is to use the ISP's proxy servers, which is a Win-Win-Situation for both ISPs AND clients:

Quote

* increased speed for clients
* distriubtion of data is more efficient. In the hypothetical ideal case a file needs to be uploaded just once and is then available for all clients of this ISP (i.e. ISP avoids multiple uploads of the same file)
* ISP avoids traffic to and from other ISPs which needs to be paid.
* Since Webcache uses the already existing proxy infrastructure of ISPs, there are no legal risks involved.
* webcache blocks are encrypted, so ISPs cannot be blamed for knowingly distributing copyrightes material

(retrieved today, 2 March 2011. translated by me)


Wikipedia further writes that

Quote

Webcache preserves the core ida of proxy servers: avoiding external data traffic. However it is feared [by eMule developers] that by using Webcache eMule would risk having ISPs' sights on them increasingly, which could result in further anti-P2P-measures.

==> Does this mean that fear of anti-P2P-measures killed an otherwise meaningful feature, creating a Win-Win-Situation for both ISPs and Internet user, and wanted by the majority of e-mule forum members (see polling results)?

This post has been edited by jesusshared: 02 March 2011 - 05:49 PM

[SS1900]

here is your "answer" > http://forum.emule-p...ndpost&p=157120

[jesusshared]

-
the arguments presented in your link
are refuted by the points above

[Stulle]

Quote

* increased speed for clients

true...

Quote

* distriubtion of data is more efficient. In the hypothetical ideal case a file needs to be uploaded just once and is then available for all clients of this ISP (i.e. ISP avoids multiple uploads of the same file)

this is definitely not true because the last implementation only allowed 5 downloads.

Quote

* ISP avoids traffic to and from other ISPs which needs to be paid.

the answer to this is actually the most important bit, while it is true that the ISP saves inter-ISP traffic he does have to pay for the proxy servers. Webcache is basically hijacking resources that are available for a different purpose. so using Webcache is not just hijacking resources but also creating additional costs that are not part of the calculation of the ISP. this is why the majority of ISPs stopped supporting Webcache with their proxies.

in turn, many users went even further and hijacked proxy servers unrelated to their ISP to use Webcache, which basically drives the whole concept of WC ad absurdum.

Quote

* Since Webcache uses the already existing proxy infrastructure of ISPs, there are no legal risks involved.

first of all, WC does not actually use existing proxy infrastructure, it hijacks it. since the purpose of the available proxies is clearly not supporting WC - even if they do support WC from a technical POV which, as pointed out above, is seldom - any hijacking can be considered a breach of the terms of use of the proxy servers. besides, legal risks are involved because the ISPs proxies will hold information about clients distributing all sorts of material.

Quote

* webcache blocks are encrypted, so ISPs cannot be blamed for knowingly distributing copyrightes material

well, so at least the hijacked ISP resources can't be considered the cause of all bad? this is not really a pro.

to sum it up, you have not read the thread attentively and probably have no idea on the discussions going on some 4 years ago. well, i was there and let me tell you this, WC was removed not because of any anti-P2P-measures but because the feature was either rendered useless (ISPs no longer allowing to store blocks on their proxies) and was abused by a majority of users.

please refrain from raping this long forgotten corpse because you have no idea about the technicals and reasoning at the time. i can tell you a number of very useful applications for pesticides, still wouldn't suggest to use it in your garden if i have no idea about your garden and who lives in it.