DCH++ in test

Post by **arnetheduck** » 2003-01-03 08:28

Well, I had a few hours to spend, so I spent them at writing a little hub application...it's currently being tested at dev.direct-connect.nu:1411, so go there and give it a spin! Try +stats for some interesting statistics...

FAQ:
Q: Is the server publically available?
R: No. Don't ask me, I promise I'll post here when / if it'll be...don't ask the hub owner either, the hub is locked to his network card...

Q: Will the server be publically available?
R: Don't know yet, haven't decided...probably, if it works out well...

Q: Anything about the features?
R: The hub is designed to run as a Win 2000/XP service, i e in the background. There is no gui as in the other hubs --> this is meant to be an advanced hub, not suitable for the beginning hub owner. It is setup by editing an xml-file, and then started with the service control panel as any other service (you can also put it in autostartup mode so that it starts with the OS). After the initial setup, most settings can't be changed unless there is a plugin loaded that allows for changing settings (this is a security feature, makes it harder to hack). The hub itself is quite simple, it supports the basic set of features that the nmdc hub offers, apart from scripting and multihub connectivity. Instead of scripts, C++ plugins are used. These plugins are very tightly integrated with the rest of the hub code, and are therefore very effective, but more difficult to write. I (or even better, someone else) might write a script plugin one fine day, to allow for simple scripts as well). The hub also has built-in minshare checking and a bit more advanced user model with different user-levels to allow for everything from vip:s to super-operators that can't be kicked by normal ones. There's more as well but i'm tired of writing...=)

Q: What about CPU and memory requirements?
R: Check out the test hub, when you write +stats in the main chat there's information about memory and CPU usage, as well as uptime. From what I've seen on that hub, that usually has 270-350 users in it, cpu usage averages to 1-2 % (one cpu minute per real hour approximately), while memory seldom goes over 7-8 mb in the release version. This is with two plugins running, one checking <++ tags and some other rules, the other one being a standard op command plugin with ban control (and the stats page of course...check +help to find out what you can do...).

[DK][TIC]Icemanâ„¢ · Post by **[DK][TIC]Icemanâ„¢** » 2003-01-03 19:53

it's look good arne

Georgyo · Post by **Georgyo** » 2003-01-03 20:48

I must say that its a very nice hub commands. But the problem is not changing the XML file, or any other file.... Its the matter of getting a script that you love writen on VB. Then recoding it to work with your hub. How ever your hub runs as a service so There is no need to worry about it.

I think I will run to the chance to use the finnal version. But then like the simplity of using the script I use now.

good luck to you.

Nev · Post by **Nev** » 2003-01-05 11:26

Tested? How hard?! <ivulgrin/>

ivulfusbar · Post by **ivulfusbar** » 2003-01-05 12:46

i noticed a lag in the mainchat whit 400 users.

but-hey-its-atleast-a-start-ly'ers ;))

the_bean · Post by **the_bean** » 2003-01-06 12:05

ivulfusbar wrote:i noticed a lag in the mainchat whit 400 users.

Well could that be bandwidth related perhaps?
Don't know what connection it's running on though.

Iceman[grrrr] · Post by **Iceman[grrrr]** » 2003-01-06 12:53

it isn't anymore...

http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... c.php?t=76

tajisen · Post by **tajisen** » 2003-01-13 20:20

How about a UNIX port?
Since you don't use any GUI code, it wouldn't be to hart to do a port to any decent UNIX flawor. Make it fork to the background and/or run as a inetd/xinetd service instead of a windows service.

If you decide to release this as a opensource project, UNIX ports will show up really quick, that's the beauty of the Opensource community.
This way, I belive in total DC domination for DC*++! Quality pays off.

I hope for a public release soon, have some module ideas I would like to try.

Keep up the great work, and good luck!

sandos · Post by **sandos** » 2003-01-14 02:58

tajisen wrote:How about a UNIX port?
Since you don't use any GUI code, it wouldn't be to hart to do a port to any decent UNIX flawor. Make it fork to the background and/or run as a inetd/xinetd service instead of a windows service.

To run as a "inetd" service, it wouldnt have to do anything since inetd takes care of everything afaik. Besides, I dont see the point in running it from inetd, it would just slow down for the first user that joins. I think one wants to run a hub in "daemon" mode, i.e. always loaded and ready to serve.

Post by **arnetheduck** » 2003-01-14 09:12

Well...it does compile in my virtualpc mandrake 9.0 (g++ 3.2) linux playground, and it even seems to be working (plugins and everything)...but I'm a programmer, not an linux script junkie, so anyone of those looking at my makefile would probably laugh and call me stupid (not that I care what that kind of people think...=)...

tajisen · Post by **tajisen** » 2003-01-14 18:42

arnetheduck wrote:...but I'm a programmer, not an linux script junkie, so anyone of those looking at my makefile would probably laugh and call me stupid

Use this community to help you with auto* scripts and UNIX testing. Me for example.

Post by **arnetheduck** » 2003-01-22 10:45

Ok, update; I did a fast and easy LUA script plugin, it was actually quite easy, so now there's lua script support as well...(also wrote a lua script that emulates parts of the ptokax lua scripting interface, easy as well...)
friend1.myftp.org decided to abandon the test for now, as I don't have time to respond to their problems...you can still try it at dev.direct-connect.nu, and I'll shortly be looking for more public testers...so if you're interested, drop me a pm...note; it's not entirely stable yet, friend1 had problems with users being disconnected every now and then...

aDe · Post by **aDe** » 2003-02-26 10:02

i took the liberty of editing your post arne, you forgot the port number, people coming in complaining in my reggae hub saying the commands weren't working

Post by **arnetheduck** » 2003-02-28 07:12

Editing the posts of the creator himself! I cannot believe that one of my faithful moderators would act so blasphemously against me =)

ivulfusbar · Post by **ivulfusbar** » 2003-02-28 07:27

i noticed that dch++ is not as forgiving the client2hub handshake as the nmdc-hub is.... ;))

andlju · Post by **andlju** » 2003-02-28 13:06

ivulfusbar wrote:i noticed that dch++ is not as forgiving the client2hub handshake as the nmdc-hub is.... )

You're not the only one.. I'm trying to create my own client, in C#, and I just couldn't figure out why I only came halfway through the handshaking, then I realized I sent an extra space after the $GetNickList command.. took my just about four hours to figure that one out..

It also seems like the hub doesn't check if clients are actually still connected? My client crashed two times while logged on to dev.direct-connect.nu, and the nicks I used these times are still on the nicklist.. (sorry about that, btw..)

/Anders

sandos · Post by **sandos** » 2003-02-28 20:01

andlju wrote:
ivulfusbar wrote:i noticed that dch++ is not as forgiving the client2hub handshake as the nmdc-hub is.... ;))
You're not the only one.. I'm trying to create my own client, in C#, and I just couldn't figure out why I only came halfway through the handshaking, then I realized I sent an extra space after the $GetNickList command.. took my just about four hours to figure that one out.. :?

It also seems like the hub doesn't check if clients are actually still connected? My client crashed two times while logged on to dev.direct-connect.nu, and the nicks I used these times are still on the nicklist.. (sorry about that, btw..)

/Anders

Thats correct. Check the +stats on that hub, and look at the number of sockets. Now thats me, luckily those didnt ever log into the hub properly...

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-07 22:34

Sorry but I disagree that to bring out a client that has no GUI is IMHO sheer stupidity.

Users like to have some control over the software they run, without any indication on the HUBs health and settings, how can someone add users in a private HUB mode?

PLUS Why is this information about this client in the Sourceforge site? Would have thought that it would be a logical thing to do seeing as the whole idea of Open Source is just that, making the source code available for others to improve on.

yakko · Post by **yakko** » 2003-03-08 01:27

digitalfaction wrote:Sorry but I disagree that to bring out a client that has no GUI is IMHO sheer stupidity.

Users like to have some control over the software they run, without any indication on the HUBs health and settings, how can someone add users in a private HUB mode?

PLUS Why is this information about this client in the Sourceforge site? Would have thought that it would be a logical thing to do seeing as the whole idea of Open Source is just that, making the source code available for others to improve on.

DCH++ is a hub software, not a client one, and yes it has no gui. you interface with it through config files and through hub bots. I've been fairly pleased with it.
What are you talking about when you mention the "private HUB mode?" and the sourceforge stuff. Your post is a bit confusing.

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-08 04:06

If you goto sourceforge on the net where DC++ originates, you will find that its open source. IN other words development is done by a group effort in public, all scripting etc, binarys and builds are posted for all to access and write modules for.

'Private Mode' in the HUB means that you have to supply a password and have a valid log-in on the HUB you wish to connect to, like on the DC HUB IM runnin for a private group.

No GUI, bad move, the least you can do is to offer some way of connecting a GUI thats accessable via a program that the end user can re-configure the HUB from, makes for easier matainance and user, if it were a commercial product, you'd be killing it by not building a GUI for it, just look around and you will see this is good advice, e-donkey server works in the same way, I ditched it as it sits in an open DOS window and does not minimise nor would it close to the system tray.

I suggest you grab a copy of DC HUB and look at it, you would agree that it needs functionality added to it, a few changes in the way the interface operates as well wouldn't go a miss.

So have a look at the original software that DC++ is based around.

www.neo-modus.com <-- The original flava
www.sourceforge.net <-- search fop DC++ and you will see what I mean.

I must admit I do like the sound of DCH+ or whatever you are going to call it sound good, but do strongly advise a GUI interface that users can run to access the HUB without having to open up .dat .ini .whatever files with editors and stuff. It would be more of a successful enterprise if you do, all were talking about is something that will act like an editor for the user.

Does that make it any clearer?

ender · Post by **ender** » 2003-03-08 04:36

Have you ever seen any real server daemons, running on linux? No GUI there either, the servers are started on system startup and run in the background. You can control them through config files. That's how DCH++ will work. And, since DCH++ supports plugins, you can be pretty sure that somebody will write a plugin for remote administration - probably through a DC client itself.

I'm working on my own hub, and while it currently has some CLI (command-line interface), I intend to remove that once it becomes stable - it is to be controlled remotely, the CLI is there just to help me debug.

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-08 05:14

Have you ever seen any real server daemons, running on linux? No GUI there either, the servers are started on system startup and run in the background. You can control them through config files. That's how DCH++ will work. And, since DCH++ supports plugins, you can be pretty sure that somebody will write a plugin for remote administration - probably through a DC client itself.

Nope I dont run Linux, and 'Real server daemons' so what? lots of server software out on the net, some better, some crappier, some just as good. Down to personal preference. And yes I have some running thatDO have GUI, take servU for instance... one of my servers, its a server daemon, runs as a system service and has a GUI FOR CONFIG! like Most Daemons DO have, I dont know what software you have been using, I have only come across a few pieces of software that dont have GUI and guess what? they dont do well.

If your writing a server for a professional application that is going to be installed and maintained by tech-hedz then yeah go down that route, you seem to be missing the point here and like I say to write an application that does not have a GUI for joe public use to set up is going to hold you back and simply to rely on someone else to write a 'Plugin' for it, your in need of a reality check, if you have no CLI for your server, how are you going to expect someone to write a plugin for it?

If you were to open up and ask people what they are looking for in a server client, you will find an overwhealming amount of replys to put in an easy configurable interface, runs in background and installs as a system service.

Its nice to know that someone is developing a HUB for DC++, but sad that you are not going to put a simple GUI in for it, you may find it easy to work and set up, your forgetting the end user, its the usual story, very little thought is put into who is going to use the app, how its going to be used and how easy it is to configure & use.

yilard · Post by **yilard** » 2003-03-08 05:36

digitalfaction wrote: Its nice to know that someone is developing a HUB for DC++, but sad that you are not going to put a simple GUI in for it.

Making GUI is unnecessary hassle in server product, especially when you want to make it cross-platform. It also bloats the whole thing and introduces unneeded complexity in early stage of development.

I don't have experience with DC++ hub, but I bet it was designed so it is possible to write a GUI frontend for it (even serv-u contains GUI as a separate console and most server software is made in this way). So maybe someone will write some GUI in the future.

For example I always write any programs with clear interface between application specific tier and presentation tier, so it is possible to create multiple user interfaces... and in fact I make presentation after application tier is working and stable.

TasMan · Post by **TasMan** » 2003-03-08 05:57

Well rather than make a GUI for the hub itself, just package it with a settings editor, which has a GUI. That way DCH++ itself remains easy to port, doesn't get bloated, etc.

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-08 06:17

TasMan wrote:just package it with a settings editor, which has a GUI. That way DCH++ itself remains easy to port, doesn't get bloated, etc.

Well said

yilard wrote:Making GUI is unnecessary hassle in server product, especially when you want to make it cross-platform. It also bloats the whole thing and introduces unneeded complexity in early stage of development.

Possibly but IMHO a requirement, would you go uot and buy something and have no indcation that its working? Its why I ditch all non-GUI ended softwar like that because you have no visual indication that its working or has had problems, It does also make trouble shooting easier.

If you ever goto a professional software house or an independent developer, they all use a GUI with what ever they develop, it makes trouble shooting, set up and lots of other stuff easier to do, even if the GUI is only going to be seen by admin.

For example I always write any programs with clear interface between application specific tier and presentation tier, so it is possible to create multiple user interfaces... and in fact I make presentation after application tier is working and stable.

My point exactly.

Sedulus · Post by **Sedulus** » 2003-03-08 06:56

digitalfaction wrote:If you ever goto a professional software house or an independent developer, they all use a GUI with what ever they develop, it makes trouble shooting, set up and lots of other stuff easier to do, even if the GUI is only going to be seen by admin.

check this: http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
and keep in mind that apache has no GUI by itself, and although there exist some GUI's, any sysadmin will tell you that hand-editing the config files is (1) easy and (2) a lot more reliable and (3) a lot more configurable.

Sedulus · Post by **Sedulus** » 2003-03-08 07:02

...and trouble shooting you say? that's wat system logging facilities are for.... in plaintext.

yilard · Post by **yilard** » 2003-03-08 07:07

digitalfaction wrote: Possibly but IMHO a requirement, would you go uot and buy something and have no indcation that its working? Its why I ditch all non-GUI ended softwar like that because you have no visual indication that its working or has had problems, It does also make trouble shooting easier.

Even without GUI you have indication if the software is working usually via extensive logging, notification, etc. And GUI itself doesn't mean you are well informed about server status (More below).

In fact most non-gui softwares are can be easier extended for advanced notification agilities (logs can be difeverted to email, short messages to a cell phone, etc.)

Nobody is saying there will be no DCH++ GUI for the rest of eternity, but obviously there are more important task to be done.

digitalfaction wrote: If you ever goto a professional software house or an independent developer, they all use a GUI with what ever they develop, it makes trouble shooting, set up and lots of other stuff easier to do, even if the GUI is only going to be seen by admin.

I count myself for software engineer

I've been working on quite a lot projects, and have to say GUI is rarely helpful during development and early troubleshooting (just because usually it is more bloated and contains more bugs than application tier itself

)

However, it depends on the kind of customer on which the software product is targeted. Products for mass market should naturally contain fancy gui. But for server products.... I've been working as a system engineer in a company selling clustering, storage products, etc. and I have to say the GUI was almost always the weakest part of the product. Awkward, buggy, unfinished, bad designed, full of security risks

. So let's give developers time to finish application tier and then maybe some come up with nice GUI .

Marvin · Post by **Marvin** » 2003-03-08 07:41

The GUI already exists, it's nice and clean, called DC++

I have'nt seen dch++ yet, but afaik, it sets different levels for users, so admins should be able to configure and monitor the hub, add reg users (if implemented) and so on.

On the other hand, the hub host will save resources because no gui for the hub itself is runnig in background. So no gui is not a so bad idea...

ender · Post by **ender** » 2003-03-08 07:47

digitalfaction wrote:Possibly but IMHO a requirement, would you go uot and buy something and have no indcation that its working? Its why I ditch all non-GUI ended softwar like that because you have no visual indication that its working or has had problems, It does also make trouble shooting easier.

Hmm, I wonder why apache is the most successful www server then - after all, it has no GUI, and you have to rely on editing config files to get it to work. As for visual indication, I can always look either at server-status page, or in the various logs it's writing... but if it serves pages, it works... and if it doesn't work, the logs will almost certainly tell exactly why it doesn't work.

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-08 10:36

ender wrote:
digitalfaction wrote:Possibly but IMHO a requirement, would you go uot and buy something and have no indcation that its working? Its why I ditch all non-GUI ended softwar like that because you have no visual indication that its working or has had problems, It does also make trouble shooting easier.
Hmm, I wonder why apache is the most successful www server then - after all, it has no GUI, and you have to rely on editing config files to get it to work. As for visual indication, I can always look either at server-status page, or in the various logs it's writing... but if it serves pages, it works... and if it doesn't work, the logs will almost certainly tell exactly why it doesn't work.

Thats why I ditched that as well, I hate looking at DOS screens that close the server when you shut the window down, IM using a web server that comes with a web interface so you can lookin on it, its secure and it also has a systray Icon to show status and it does the same as apachee, serve webpages, but it sits in background is small (less than 200kb program file and less than 8Mb ram is taken by it, in stark contrast to the 18Megs it took to run Apachee). As for being the most sucessfull server...by whos measure?

I know theirs a lot of Apache servers out on the net, historically they are good but lack the insight of a GUI front end to set up, make changes and see status.

Its not much to ask for, it can be built in HTTP, it after all is a server, the interface can be a web style interface.

yakko · Post by **yakko** » 2003-03-08 11:46

digitalfaction wrote:If you goto sourceforge on the net where DC++ originates, you will find that its open source. IN other words development is done by a group effort in public, all scripting etc, binarys and builds are posted for all to access and write modules for.

I understand what open source means. DC++ is open source. DCH++ is not, though I'm sure once it's more mature it might be.

'Private Mode' in the HUB means that you have to supply a password and have a valid log-in on the HUB you wish to connect to, like on the DC HUB IM runnin for a private group.

Ah, using your own terms confused me. Everyone else calls it just a "private hub."

No GUI, bad move, the least you can do is to offer some way of connecting a GUI thats accessable via a program that the end user can re-configure the HUB from, makes for easier matainance and user, if it were a commercial product, you'd be killing it by not building a GUI for it, just look around and you will see this is good advice, e-donkey server works in the same way, I ditched it as it sits in an open DOS window and does not minimise nor would it close to the system tray.

You DO use Windows don't you? Hit <ctrl> <alt> <del> and click on processes. Look at all those GUI-less programs running. They have a place just as GUI ones do. DCH++ uses 1.36MB of RAM and doesn't require my computer to be logged in. I can configure it all via commands when I'm in the hub. Remote Administration = Good.

I suggest you grab a copy of DC HUB and look at it, you would agree that it needs functionality added to it, a few changes in the way the interface operates as well wouldn't go a miss.

If you read the forums you'd find a few posts where I mention running my own hub. Yes the original DC hub needs work, and DCH++ is better in a lot of ways. The original DC hub sucks up my computer's RAM and requires me to stay logged in. When the hub crashes my hub's down until I can get home. With DCH++ I have at least a bit of remote control.

Does that make it any clearer?

a bit, but I still think you're the one that's slightly confused.

ender · Post by **ender** » 2003-03-08 11:49

digitalfaction wrote:Thats why I ditched that as well, I hate looking at DOS screens that close the server when you shut the window down

There are no DOS screens on linux. All (server-related) work is done in console, usually you don't install X-Windows on a server.

As for being the most sucessfull server...by whos measure?

Netcraft's

I know theirs a lot of Apache servers out on the net, historically they are good but lack the insight of a GUI front end to set up, make changes and see status.

I just gave Apache as an example, as it's by far the most popular server software. There are thousands of other servers available that have no interface (run as daemons). I use a few on my server.

Its not much to ask for, it can be built in HTTP, it after all is a server, the interface can be a web style interface.[/quote]

digitalfaction · Post by **digitalfaction** » 2003-03-08 13:54

K, but your still missing the point....End users

Simple at the end of the day, the more harder you make something to use and access the less likely you will be able shift the technology.

So by the way this thread is going, it seems that people are not in favour of making something that could be user friendly. So beit I will have to live with this DC HUB then, it has a user interface, serves its purpose but could be improved upon.

At present I cant comment on the processes running, if I had a look at the processes running then I would kill my network and all those connected to me... BUT yeah, these programs form part of the main GUI, controlling everything from the CD-Burner to the Video output and not forgetting the web and they are configurable via it. This has been my point all along, woul wouldnt use an operating system unless you could inteact with it would you?

Like I keep on saying, a GUI front end would do you more favours and people would be more likely to use it, but dont take my advice on the matter, find out for yourself, people want easy to use stuff, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to see that, and what you may find eays another person wont.

As for netcraft, they only looked at 5 http servers, you only have to do a search for http servers to see that they only touch the tip of the market, search for http servers will prove that, even my ISP uses Apache, it has its fuck-ups on a hourly basis and always misses out stuff like images, alwys errors on the page from missing code or corrupted data, so biggest aint best, but an intresting point.

So how about it then? A web console to interface with the DCH++ server, keeps everyone happy, the http server I use can be configures via config files or via the web console that I use regularly? and stop avoiding the issue.

Neimad · Post by **Neimad** » 2003-03-08 16:15

If you think about it, a DC hub server probably does more work (at least as far as socket transactions go) than most web servers; yet most web servers on the net are running on dedicated server hardware, whereas most DC hub servers are run on plain workstations.

The reason is obvious, but the fact remains that most of the people that would run a DC hub server would probably not be able to devote a whole PC, let alone a server-spec'd PC to running it.

Personally, this is why I favour leaving the hub server with a UI -- by all means, make it a service, but since most of the people using it will be running it on the same PC they use daily, make it easy for them to visually monitor and interact with it.

Just my two pence.

Neimad

yilard · Post by **yilard** » 2003-03-08 19:32

digitalfaction wrote: As for netcraft, they only looked at 5 http servers, you only have to do a search for http servers to see that they only touch the tip of the market, search for http servers will prove that, even my ISP uses Apache, it has its fuck-ups on a hourly basis and always misses out stuff like images, alwys errors on the page from missing code or corrupted data, so biggest aint best, but an intresting point.

Sorry, my message is off topic, but I have to tell you that you can trust Netcraft. They didn't miss you favourite web server from surveys because they don't like it. Simply, nobody uses those fancy webservers with GUI (well IIS also has gui supplied by microsoft) in enterprise environment. There are other features required for real webserver than fancy GUI. However I understand that such products have their place in So-Ho for example, but still I wouldn't use it, unless it is proven solution (e.g. wide-spread software like serv-u ftpd or proven open-source).

You accuse Apache from being buggy, but this accusation is certainly false. The fuck-ups you have described are caused simply by miseducation and/or ignorance of responsible sysadmins. Although there are certainly some bugs left in apache even after years of development, it is simply the piece of really working software. And believe me there is only fraction of all softwares which can be considered as really working.

I just wanted to tell say apache and IIS are really the two most widespread servers and others have tiny share of the market. HTTP technology is so well known, that every jerk now thinks he can write a webserver, equip it with nice GUI and sell it, but results are often awful. Products are buggy, eat resources like mad, and most importantly they are really _FULL_ of security issues.

yakko · Post by **yakko** » 2003-03-08 20:24

digitalfaction wrote:K, but your still missing the point....End users

Simple at the end of the day, the more harder you make something to use and access the less likely you will be able shift the technology.

So by the way this thread is going, it seems that people are not in favour of making something that could be user friendly. So beit I will have to live with this DC HUB then, it has a user interface, serves its purpose but could be improved upon.

I think you're missing the point about DCH++. Look at this quote from the first post in the thread:
[quot="arnetheduck"]Q: Anything about the features?
R: The hub is designed to run as a Win 2000/XP service, i e in the background. There is no gui as in the other hubs --> this is meant to be an advanced hub, not suitable for the beginning hub owner.[/quote]

This isn't targeting the basic audience, it's targeting a more advanced userbase. One that's more comfortable with editing .xml files and restarting services. If someone doesn't feel comfortable doing that then they should use some other hub software. Personally, as soon as I have one or two more things I have with the Neo-Modus DC Hub I'm moving my 130+ user hub to DCH++

DCH++ in test

DCH++ in test

Keep on working:-)