01-19-2005, 12:59 AM
Establishing a mandatory share ratio of at least 0.50, has a definite downside.
To give an example about why I don't believe this will work lets assume the tracker has only one torrent and one hundred members, all but one (seeder) of which are downloading the torrent.
For every member that has a share ratio of above 1.00 there has to be an equal number of members below 1.00. If there are ten members with ratios in the 2.00 to 3.00 range (which are not uncommon) it makes it even more difficult to maintain a ratio of 1.00 and almost inevitable that some members will have ratios below 0.50.
These users would be those that jumped on late or have the slower dl/ul speeds. If there are five users that fail to reach a share ratio of 0.50 and are banned the process repeats itself with 95 users.
It would be helpful for users to open up their ports, I'm doing so within the next few days if possible, this would definitely speed things up, but it would not remedy the leeching problem.
As for users with high share ratios; Overall they are great for the tracker by speeding up transfers, but as long as they exist it is certain that some members will fall below the share ratio. If a policy were put in place for members to stop seeding after reaching a ratio of 1.00 this would only slow down speeds.
I think the 0.50 requirement is a fairly modest one and may not be as harmful as I make out but in my opinion, as members are banned others will fall into their slot.
Of course, this is just a model and does not fully depict reality but I think you get my idea. I'm definitely interested to see what others think.
To give an example about why I don't believe this will work lets assume the tracker has only one torrent and one hundred members, all but one (seeder) of which are downloading the torrent.
For every member that has a share ratio of above 1.00 there has to be an equal number of members below 1.00. If there are ten members with ratios in the 2.00 to 3.00 range (which are not uncommon) it makes it even more difficult to maintain a ratio of 1.00 and almost inevitable that some members will have ratios below 0.50.
These users would be those that jumped on late or have the slower dl/ul speeds. If there are five users that fail to reach a share ratio of 0.50 and are banned the process repeats itself with 95 users.
It would be helpful for users to open up their ports, I'm doing so within the next few days if possible, this would definitely speed things up, but it would not remedy the leeching problem.
As for users with high share ratios; Overall they are great for the tracker by speeding up transfers, but as long as they exist it is certain that some members will fall below the share ratio. If a policy were put in place for members to stop seeding after reaching a ratio of 1.00 this would only slow down speeds.
I think the 0.50 requirement is a fairly modest one and may not be as harmful as I make out but in my opinion, as members are banned others will fall into their slot.
Of course, this is just a model and does not fully depict reality but I think you get my idea. I'm definitely interested to see what others think.