Talk:Super-seeding

Cleanup Reasons
I see that a Cleanup tag has been added to this article since July 2005, but I don't know specifically what it refers to. I have rewritten the article to clean up the explanations. Was someone looking to incorporate the information into the main BitTorrent page, instead of on its own page? - AeroIllini - 21:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag, I see nothing wrong with the article. If it is put back, please state the reasons here. gkhan 12:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can some1 more experienced please rewrite this paragraph?
 * The current BitTorrent protocol is probably riddled with flaws similar to this, such that it may be necessary in future versions of the protocol to establish secure VPN pipes between clients to prevent ISP spoofing.


 * 85.223.108.141 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Supported clients removal
Why should we have a list of supported clients here? That means we have to sync with Comparison of BitTorrent clients all the time. And it's pretty much redundant with it. IMO a link to the comparison would be better. --logixoul 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'd remove that list. 65.24.151.151 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree in concept, but the comparison list should be mentioned and linked from this article, and I'm not seeing it. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

More benefits of super-seeding
It states in the article that reasons other than minimizing costs, for super-seeding are not so clear.

From own experience I know that; one might have an old hard disk drive or one of inferior quality. Putting heavy workloads, which normal seeding can if the seed has enough bandwidth at its disposal, may cause slowing down of the computer performance in general. It can also depend on the ammount of bandwidth the seed has got. If too much bandwidth is consumed, high latencies from the seed to internet may occur.

I have no cited sources for this, but I consider myself competent enough in the area of computers, to dare state this. And I hope this is relevant enough, this is the first time I try to contribute to wikipedia.

ZyaX 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even More benefits of super-seeding
One obvious benefit is that Super-seeding favours those peers that themselves have a high swarm throughput. Instead of uploading duplicate pieces to possible dead end peers, this utilizes the precious uploading capacity of the first and only seed in a swarm much more efficient. With more seeds joining in the benefits of this peer selection strategy become less pronounced. Once only the dead enders are left in a swarm super seeding benefits go negative.

User:tderusco April 5th, 2006 (UTC)

Benefit of more unique pieces
As I have seen firsthand, in a large initial swarm with only one seed that has a relatively limited upload speed, there is a big benefit to having this person seed most efficiently -- i.e., putting out as many unique pieces as possible. With many peers, each of those unique pieces will get dispersed quickly and more unique pieces are put in the system by the seed, allowing a faster initial completion rate among the high throughput peers.

I've experienced it both ways, and it is faster, in proportion to how many initial peers are in the swarm.

User:Sioen July 31, 2006 (DZU)

"Abuse of superseeding"?
There's a list of clients accused of abusing superseeding. What good is this without a description of what is meant by "abuse"? 68.124.137.182 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * E.g. BitComet (and BitLord? since it's based on BitComet) exploit superseeding by connecting and disconnecting as soon as they have got a piece from the superseeding client. This results the client sending pieces to them every time they connect and since they disconnect and connect as soon as getting a single piece they exploit it so that the superseeding client is sending them pieces all the time. This is the reason why BitComet and BitLord is often banned by trackers and peers. This is important info so it should be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.205.227 (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentence correction
"This feature should only be used when there is less than one peer." Doesn't this sentence need corrected? Shouldn't it be in the case of only 1 seed(as all of the documentation on the feature suggests, like here), rather than less than 1 peer(which seems nonsensical)? Smeggysmeg 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit that changed that sentence. µTorrent FAQ states that super seeding is effective when the user is the only seed and there is at least two peers (more than one) in the swarm --Mindeye 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatal protocol weakness?
The last section on weaknesses inherent to the bittorrent protocol seems rather out of place. Perhaps it should be removed or integrated into a different bittorent article. 76.208.20.131 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's completely uncited and doesn't have enough context to link it to the subject of the article. I'm deleting the section. jhf (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Making this article better
Currently this article isn't very good.

E.g. Clients exploiting superseeding whould probably be added. E.g. BitComet and maybe BitLord since it's based on bitcomet do this.

And more information about superseeding can be found on the webpage of the creator of superseeding: http://www.bittornado.com/ (BitTornado is a BTclient by him)

and http://www.bittornado.com/docs/superseed.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.205.227 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding seedlessness
Does the SS feature prevent torrents from having incomplete availability because the peers all loaded the same chunks? If so this is important enough to mention. If there is one seed and that seed uploads the torrent twice, but there are three peers then the peers might all have the same 2/3 of the torrent and no one gets done. Or there are seeds/peers that do not seed to 1-ratio uploading the same chunks, in this case the torrent might loose full availability. --77.1.144.72 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Purpose overlap with Glossary_of_BitTorrent_terms
If there is a reason to have this distinct article, then the section of Glossary of BitTorrent terms should have a link to this article using the template. Otherwise, the two should be merged. Since this appears to be peculiar to BitTorrent and perhaps of no interest at all outside this scope, I feel that this separate article (which reads as very sloppy and unclear in its delivery and perhaps unencyclopedic to begin with) should be done away with. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)