Talk:Peer exchange

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

rTorrent

Shouldn't rTorrent be listed with the libtorrent based clients instead of on its own? According to the rTorrent article, it uses libtorrent also. EricJ2190 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rTorrent is based upon a libtorrent, but not the same one as the other applications listed. Rurik (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality

This is a pretty shitty article and appears to just be a copy of David Harrison's livejournal blog about the dangers of PEX, rather than an actual, informative article. Someone needs to clean this shit up bad or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.216.146 (talk • contribs)

I agree. The article makes it sound like PEX is useless or has actual downsides, which is clearly not the case. I mean, "cliques", disconnected graphs, how is that supposed to happen? The point of PEX is to discover other peers and connect to them, increasing the number of edges in the graph. Rather than the possibility of split graphs, there's the possibility of disconnected graphs merging if they just touch once. --89.60.194.125 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, there's a difference between being connected to a node, and knowing about a node. While it makes sense to limit the number of nodes you're actively badgering, this doesn't stop you remembering every node you've seen, and passing these details to other nodes. The 'articulation point' criticism can't happen, because there will never be an entire subgraph wherein every single node doesn't even know about any node on the other subgraph. (The only way this could possibly happen is if the "articulation point" is connected to both swarms, but isn't doing PEX). As eMule has demonstrated, source exchange works (and works even better when there's one compatible implementation shared between all user agents). 217.158.67.173 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be useful to use a less technical language in the beginning of the article. I an not familiar with lots of the wording and did not get sufficient understanding. I would welcome a non-technical introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.213.50 (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized material, improved tone, and removed "inappropriate tone" tag

I've reorganized the material, rewritten some paragraphs, tried to make the introduction less technical, and have removed the "inappropriate tone" tag that has been on this article since 2007.

I've added some material on PEX conventions but overall, the article still needs more material (see list at top of this Talk page). The section on DHT is still poorly written and its claims need citations to back them up.

I also think there should also be a short section on magnet. There is already a Wiki page on this (Magnet URI scheme) but its relation to PEX should be explained, as there are about a thousand page hits on Google for "DHT/PEX/Magnet" and even those familiar with BitTorrent often don't know how DHT and Magnet actually relate to PEX.

Ross Fraser (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]