Trivial complaint regarding 'max upload speed'

Use this forum to flesh out your feature request before you enter it in <a href="http://dcpp.net/bugzilla/">Bugzilla</a>.

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Trivial complaint regarding 'max upload speed'

Post by imb » 2006-01-12 18:34

in 0.68. There is no 0.8 or 0.75. A) these connections are very common, and B) There is a fundamental difference between having the adorementioned connection and a 1 or 0.5 connection which are the closest alternatives.

Nice feature BTW. Even though I suppose it'll be inaccurate since so many people netlimit unreasonably and wont fill it in accuratly.

vellu
Posts: 20
Joined: 2003-08-30 01:33
Contact:

Post by vellu » 2006-01-13 12:31

Also, it seems that it is indicated as MiB/s which is quite inpractical since it is quite a huge speed. That is, megaBYTES/s, not megabits/s as it propably is meant to be.

The most common upload speed in my country is a 0.5Mbps/s DSL, which would mean around 0.06 MiB/s.

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2006-01-13 13:04

Well, since much of the dc-development have taken place in sweden, where its common to have atleast 1MiB/s (10Mbit) its not so suprisingly.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

vellu
Posts: 20
Joined: 2003-08-30 01:33
Contact:

Post by vellu » 2006-01-13 14:46

Really? ATLEAST 10Mbps UPload? So even faster ones are available?

Even so, the highest option 100MiB/S is plain ridiculous... But if it was meant to be 100Mbps that would make sense, as high as it is.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2006-01-13 15:31

Yes, there are faster ones than 10 Mbit/s. And I know atleast one ISP that offer 1 Gbit/s.

[NL]Pur
Programmer
Posts: 66
Joined: 2004-07-21 14:32

Post by [NL]Pur » 2006-01-13 17:43

100 MiB/s is soon outdated probably, since LAN's are 1Gbit by default these days.

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2006-01-13 18:08

vellu wrote:Really? ATLEAST 10Mbps UPload? So even faster ones are available?

Even so, the highest option 100MiB/S is plain ridiculous... But if it was meant to be 100Mbps that would make sense, as high as it is.


Yes, slow as 10Mbit was standard for me 10 years ago.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Post by imb » 2006-01-13 22:42

[NL]Pur wrote:100 MiB/s is soon outdated probably, since LAN's are 1Gbit by default these days.


The fact that "100 MiB/s" will be obsolete for 0.00001% of home broadband users soon hardly constitutes a reason for ignoring the majority of users. Forget it, *switches to fulDC*. You guys have completely lost the plot.

Xan1977
Forum Moderator
Posts: 627
Joined: 2003-06-05 20:15

Post by Xan1977 » 2006-01-14 00:01

Is DC++ used on LAN's? Why yes, it is. Does the scale go down to .005 mebibytes? Why yes, it does. What the hell is the problem?

*switches to fulDC*.

:)
Last edited by Xan1977 on 2006-01-14 00:07, edited 1 time in total.

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2006-01-14 00:05

You switch to a client that is based on DC++? A client that is developed by Trem, a person who frequently send patches to improve DC++? And then say we've 'lost the plot'? You're an idiot then.

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2006-01-14 09:14

The upload speeds in there seem a bit arbitrary to me as well. Especially sticking to MiB/s instead of kiB/s where appropriate. 0.005 MiB/s is just... well... funny.
This post has been created in 0.0013 days. :D
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Post by imb » 2006-01-14 11:37

ullner wrote:You switch to a client that is based on DC++?


I didn't say there was anything wrong with the client on a fundamental level, you might well have a point if I was attacking the client on the scale Ruri_Ruri or whoever it was who used to spam those messages in hubs saying DC++ should be superseded with xx client. Nice try though, you'll have to do better though Mr I know all DC Guru.

"0.005 MiB/s is just... well... funny."

It's not funny, it's ridiculous!

ullner
Forum Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: 2004-09-10 11:00
Contact:

Post by ullner » 2006-01-14 11:42

Change the 'MiB/s' string to 'Mib/s' and you should be all peachy.

TheParanoidOne
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37

Post by TheParanoidOne » 2006-01-14 13:56

I've never understood people's fascination with the connection type. It's not used by anything. It's not checked for validity by anything. It's completely pointless.
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

DC++ Guide | Words

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2006-01-14 14:03

TheParanoidOne wrote:I've never understood people's fascination with the connection type. It's not used by anything. It's not checked for validity by anything. It's completely pointless.


Many rules (slots, hubs etc.) are currently based on it, 'cause an 56k user shouldn't open 20 slots like one with 1-2Mb (or pathetically speaking, Mib) upload speed. But let's assume it's pointless, then why is it there?
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

vellu
Posts: 20
Joined: 2003-08-30 01:33
Contact:

Post by vellu » 2006-01-14 14:10

TheParanoidOne wrote:I've never understood people's fascination with the connection type. It's not used by anything. It's not checked for validity by anything. It's completely pointless.


It's not exactly pointless, but it does lack merit since it is only based users own notification. Many users haven't set it right and some even flat out lie about their upload speed.

If there only were a foolproof way of determining users upload speed, I'm sure it would've been implemented a long time ago.

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2006-01-14 14:22

vellu wrote:It's not exactly pointless, but it does lack merit since it is only based users own notification. Many users haven't set it right and some even flat out lie about their upload speed.

If there only were a foolproof way of determining users upload speed, I'm sure it would've been implemented a long time ago.


You are also considering users cheaters and lamers by default. Moreover, it's not that hard for the user to determine, they all have a contract with their ISPs. :)

What I miss is common sense. 0.005Mib=5,12KiB=40,96Kib. Which ISP offers 40.96KiB upload bandwidth? Is there such an ISP which is 'very common in Sweden'?
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

vellu
Posts: 20
Joined: 2003-08-30 01:33
Contact:

Post by vellu » 2006-01-14 14:49

bastya_elvtars wrote:You are also considering users cheaters and lamers by default. Moreover, it's not that hard for the user to determine, they all have a contract with their ISPs. :)

What I miss is common sense. 0.005Mib=5,12KiB=40,96Kib. Which ISP offers 40.96KiB upload bandwidth? Is there such an ISP which is 'very common in Sweden'?


Of course the users themselves all know, or atleast should know, what their upload speed is, but a lot of people can't be bothered with to use the correct setting. They're just lazy that way. I would imagine that the majority of users do it right though, but even so the setting lacks credibility.

What I meant was, an automated way for the program to detect the speed itself, without any user input. Doesn't exist.

(40Kib/s would be an old-fashioned modem user. Not that common anymore, I suppose, but possible. Sensible for DC++; definitely not)

TheParanoidOne
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37

Post by TheParanoidOne » 2006-01-14 15:13

bastya_elvtars wrote:Many rules (slots, hubs etc.) are currently based on it

Haha. That's just silly. The "rules" may make sense in the context of the actual connection type/speed but that's completely disconnected from the little widget in DC++. ie. I can set it to whatever I like, regardless of my connection type. Anyone who attempts to enforce any form of rules based on the value of this field will fail miserably. And deserve to.

bastya_elvtars wrote:But let's assume it's pointless, then why is it there?

Legacy.
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

DC++ Guide | Words

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2006-01-14 19:17

Yeah, it's easy to say 'it sucks', but you have to confess that there is no better way, if you read the second part of the first sentence you just quoted, you would see what I meant.
And this will be true unless the user is definitely enforced to keep a reasonable balance between download and upload, meaningly: some credit system, based on the amount of data uploaded (maybe compared to downloaded but the up should be enough), dropping any connection to (actual or average) speed completely.
Or yes, make the same rules for all the hubbers, regardless of what their upload speed is, how many Kib/s or 333byte/year, etc., that is what you have just suggested, which is also a failure (this word seems to extremely attract you, I hope its derivatives do so :P).
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

arnetheduck
The Creator Himself
Posts: 296
Joined: 2003-01-02 17:15

Post by arnetheduck » 2006-01-15 10:10

Geez, calm down people, it's just a typo...it's supposed to be Mibibits/second, the way most connections are spec'd...

imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Post by imb » 2006-01-15 17:22

How about a system similar to soulseeks but instead the client itself would calculate the average speed of every file over 3MB downloaded, then automatically generate your connection speed by putting you in bands that rise in 64K increments. For example if the average speed of two files uploaded was 57KB/s, DC++ would show your connection upload speed as 512Kbit. Probably a bit of a waste of time, but it doesn't seem completely unfeasible since DC++ is already generating stat's constantly with totals transferred.

bastya_elvtars
Posts: 164
Joined: 2005-01-06 08:39
Location: HU
Contact:

Post by bastya_elvtars » 2006-01-15 22:07

I think the actual transfer speed is somewhat unreliable. I forgot to post the reply before I left, but I wanted to suggest a first-time connection setup wizard or a similar thingy - because in other P2P clients, the connection type affects the limits, no. of connections, etc.
Hey you, / Don't help them to bury the light... / Don't give in / Without a fight. (Pink Floyd)

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2006-01-16 12:21

imb wrote:How about a system similar to soulseeks but instead the client itself would calculate the average speed of every file over 3MB downloaded, then automatically generate your connection speed by putting you in bands that rise in 64K increments.

The field is just a general idea what speeds you might get, coding what you want is a lot of work for something that's just a guess.
  • What if you don't have any uploads?
  • What if they upload to another client on their LAN? Should the 10/100/1000 Mib speeds throw off the computed average?
  • How often should DC++ retest the download speed?
  • How often should DC++ broadcast the speed?
  • How do you explain to users that the speed is just a guess (for instance, when a user uses their upload bandwidth for something else, or when their ISPs' interconnectivity is bad)?


It's a nice idea, but I think there are other ideas more worthy of implementation. (Plus there are some implementation issues with this one.)

imb
Posts: 99
Joined: 2004-06-15 17:48
Location: England

Post by imb » 2006-01-18 07:08

GargoyleMT wrote:What if you don't have any uploads?


Newbs would simply have ?? as their upload speed. It's not that important, the goal would be increasing the percentage of accuracy, 100% seems to be impossible no matter what is done.

GargoyleMT wrote:What if they upload to another client on their LAN? Should the 10/100/1000 Mib speeds throw off the computed average?


If there's no way around it then I don't think it's a big deal. Remember the upload speed would now be labelled as average upload speed, therefore would still be accurate in the sense that those in the LAN would get the higher speeds shown in the connection.


GargoyleMT wrote:How often should DC++ retest the download speed?


Not sure what you mean here.

GargoyleMT wrote:How often should DC++ broadcast the speed?


Perhaps once a week of totalled up online time, so as not to generate too much traffic on the hub side

GargoyleMT wrote:How do you explain to users that the speed is just a guess (for instance, when a user uses their upload bandwidth for something else, or when their ISPs' interconnectivity is bad)?


I think it would be a good thing that these types of users would get a fitting connection speed, same with the netlimiters. Perhaps this would encourage the average netlimiter to cut it out knowing something like this would gain more operator scrutiny. You'd explain to them by once again reminding them that it is an average. Plus, you get users already complaining that they get 501 B/s out of x user with their connection speed as T3.


GargoyleMT wrote:It's a nice idea, but I think there are other ideas more worthy of implementation. (Plus there are some implementation issues with this one.)


Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% behind the idea , just throwing out some suggestions. I also think 'more worthy ideas' is largely subjective, I personally don't need a function to disconnect slow downloads for example.

Locked