disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

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
favian
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-03-01 14:48

disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

Post by favian » 2006-03-01 14:55

it would be nice to give a hub the option of blocking out users who are using DC++ clients that have the ability to cap their upload speed.

i beleive this would encourage users to share and to join a hub/network that has a good community of users that actually share. therefore, it'd make it easier to get the files you are downloading.

i've tried downloading files from users who are obviously capping their speed, and it says things like 7 days remaining. Downloading at 750bytes per second isnt fun or generous.

there are applications such as netlimiter that do the same thing, and it would be nice if DC++ can detect if such application is being used, so that the hub knows if you're 'cheating' and not sharing.

let me reiterate, that this should be an 'optional' feature for the hub if the owner of the hub chooses to active the feature.

i think this is a fair and equitable request.

it unfair when you are sharing files at 120k to a user who is only letting you download at 500bytes pers second

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

Re: disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

Post by ullner » 2006-03-01 15:31

favian wrote:i think this is a fair and equitable request.
How is it fair? There are many users on an assymetric network that need to use Netlimiter-ish programs.
Your request isn't feasable. There are tons of programs that can limit network traffic and there's no way DC++ could ever be able to detect them all.

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2006-03-01 15:59


ibicoben
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-02-28 14:29
Location: FRANCE

Post by ibicoben » 2006-03-01 18:08

hi,

there are applications such as netlimiter that do the same thing, and it would be nice if DC++ can detect if such application is being used, so that the hub knows if you're 'cheating' and not sharing.


I think exactly this !!!!!!

see my post lol => http://www.dcpp.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16540
sorry for my english :-)

Wisp
Posts: 218
Joined: 2003-04-01 10:58

Post by Wisp » 2006-03-02 06:45

The problem is that a lot of users use netlimiter in a fair way, and not to just cap all trafic to the minimum possible.. I use netlimiter to reduce upload with about 10%, so I can keep it running the whole day, while still being able to surf the net.. If the usage of netlimiter was forbidden, I would have quit dc++ everytime I want to surf the net.

A better solution in my opinion is to reward users for uploading. Like every user keeps record of who he is downloading from, and when that particular user wants something from him, he gets a higher priority.

cologic
Programmer
Posts: 337
Joined: 2003-01-06 13:32
Contact:

Post by cologic » 2006-03-02 10:41

These two threads discuss a ratings system. (Another interesting post by Wisp came up in that search. Arguably per-user ratings have fewer problems with what he seems to want than a single ratio though.)

Wisp
Posts: 218
Joined: 2003-04-01 10:58

Post by Wisp » 2006-03-02 10:51

A simple ratio system would work best in my opinion, let every user keep a logfile where he keeps track of which users he downloaded from, and if that user wants to download from him, he get priority above a user who has no (or a less) record.

What i meant with that post was that a emule-like system with waiting-lists doesn't seem like a good idea for dc++, I like a far more simple system.

repattila
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-01-25 11:06

Post by repattila » 2006-03-02 12:05

I think a mutch simpler torrent like ratio system (just the amount downloaded and uploaded would be stored for each user on the hub)would be great. But of corse there are some difficulties, especially that it would make regs unavoidable. But i think it is maybe worth to sacrifice this freedom, maybe...

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2006-03-03 02:21

repattila wrote:I think a mutch simpler torrent like ratio system (just the amount downloaded and uploaded would be stored for each user on the hub)would be great. But of corse there are some difficulties, especially that it would make regs unavoidable. But i think it is maybe worth to sacrifice this freedom, maybe...


This has been discussed before. Since transfers don't go through the hub, the client would have to tell the hub how much it has uploaded/downloaded, and there would be little to stop it from lying. Additionally, users don't want to be spied on in this matter, and it could have other, legal, repercussions.

favian
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-03-01 14:48

Re: disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

Post by favian » 2006-03-06 05:07

ullner wrote:
favian wrote:i think this is a fair and equitable request.
How is it fair? There are many users on an assymetric network that need to use Netlimiter-ish programs.
Your request isn't feasable. There are tons of programs that can limit network traffic and there's no way DC++ could ever be able to detect them all.


are you really asking how is it fair?

i suppose its completely fair for me to upload at 1k a second and download at 200k a second. while i agree with your assessment that it is damn near impossible to keep track of all these types of programs, i disagree with your assertion that there is nothing WRONG or unfair about using these programs.

favian
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-03-01 14:48

Post by favian » 2006-03-06 05:08

cologic wrote:These two threads discuss a ratings system. (Another interesting post by Wisp came up in that search. Arguably per-user ratings have fewer problems with what he seems to want than a single ratio though.)


what a great idea

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Re: disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

Post by Todi » 2006-03-06 06:23

favian wrote:i suppose its completely fair for me to upload at 1k a second and download at 200k a second. while i agree with your assessment that it is damn near impossible to keep track of all these types of programs, i disagree with your assertion that there is nothing WRONG or unfair about using these programs.

If you do that, then it's you who is not fair. The program hasn't done anything wrong. Why are you blaming the programs for the users deeds? Bandwidth limiters don't destroy upload speeds, people do.

repattila
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-01-25 11:06

Re: disable/restrict use of bandwidth limiters

Post by repattila » 2006-03-06 08:03

Todi wrote:If you do that, then it's you who is not fair. The program hasn't done anything wrong. Why are you blaming the programs for the users deeds? Bandwidth limiters don't destroy upload speeds, people do.


I agree.
Btw, with some connections, i suppose almost with all of that which has smaller upload, limiting upload is a must, cos otherwise ur whole upload bandwith can be esaly taken, leaving none for acknowledge packets and by this slowing download a lot, even resulting in not equally divided upload. Of course it doesn't mean, that anyone should limit her/his upload to 1K or so.

Pothead
Posts: 223
Joined: 2005-01-15 06:55

Post by Pothead » 2006-03-06 08:09

Todi wrote:If you do that, then it's you who is not fair. The program hasn't done anything wrong. Why are you blaming the programs for the users deeds? Bandwidth limiters don't destroy upload speeds, people do.
Yes, well said Todi. :)

favian believe it or not but people need upload speed for more than just DC++. I share my internet line with another pc on my home network, and they need to be able to use the internet as well. I also run 2 hubs which both require upload bandwidth.

The only real solution i can think for this is to make all downloads and uploads in dc take their bandwidth after everything else which needs some, having dc use the left over bandwidth. People use either internal limiting clients or external programs to try and regulate this.

Also with DSL lines, an upload of over 80% of total available bandwith reduces download speed to about 10% of it's maximium.
And if you don't know what i mean about available bandwidth . . .. i have 32kb/s upload. The max upload i've seen it going in 2 years is 26kb/s. So i have an available upload of 26kb/s not the 32kb/s which my ISP say i have. Any upload over 20kb/s kills my download speed (which i'm not too arsed about as i hardly ever download, but it's nice to be able to once every so often).
And that's 20kb/s for ALL programs which need the internet, not just dc.

CB-Goldy
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-05-24 17:20

Post by CB-Goldy » 2006-05-24 17:28

Wisp wrote:The problem is that a lot of users use netlimiter in a fair way, and not to just cap all trafic to the minimum possible.. I use netlimiter to reduce upload with about 10%, so I can keep it running the whole day, while still being able to surf the net.. If the usage of netlimiter was forbidden, I would have quit dc++ everytime I want to surf the net.

A better solution in my opinion is to reward users for uploading. Like every user keeps record of who he is downloading from, and when that particular user wants something from him, he gets a higher priority.
In that case I'd be first in line for everybody becasue I have a constant upload of about 120KiB. Just now in about 6 hours I have uploaded 1.6GiB and have Downloaded a mere 16MiB!! I think that's a little unfair. :cry:

I propose though that DC++have it own limiter but to a degree where it's impossible abuse. You can limit your upload but only from 1-25KiB from your highest consistant upload which would be 125KiB for me I think which would allow me to cap at 100KiB for upload. That way it would have downloaders 100KiB Bandwidth and leave me some headroom to sufe or be able to play a game instead of rendering the PC unable to do any thing else on the net. It gets pretty boring sitting in front of the chat window watching your PC download nothing and upload at maximum.

Which brings me to another point. I was wondering if it would be feasable to have a option where downloaders can have the option of granting themselfes a single slot from someone for short periods of time so that all the time on DC is not in only uploading. Say like 15-30 min forced slot aquire and have a limit of say 1-3 forced grants. Which could be done like every 3 hours or so.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2006-05-25 17:17

CB-Goldy wrote:I propose though that DC++have it own limiter but to a degree where it's impossible abuse. You can limit your upload but only from 1-25KiB from your highest consistant upload.
I'm not sure how that equates to impossible to abuse. 1-25 KiB/s is a pretty wide range, for normal upload streams.
CB-Goldy wrote:I was wondering if it would be feasable to have a option where downloaders can have the option of granting themselfes a single slot from someone for short periods of time
It sounds like you're asking DC++ to be able to "grant itself" a download slot on another user? I wouldn't like it if I had more uploads than configured. I already give 100% of my bandwidth to uploads (resulting in a 22.something upload ratio), if someone wants a slot, all they have to do is wait. I'd prefer to reward people who are patient.


If what you're asking for is right, you'd be better off phrasing it as "slot rotation", where you'd limit a slot to a time or byte limit if there are waiting users. Shareaza uses something like this. I'm not sure it would be received favorably in DC, but the reaction to your phrasing would probably be overwhelmingly negative.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-05-27 23:06

CB-Goldy wrote:I was wondering if it would be feasable to have a option where downloaders can have the option of granting themselfes a single slot from someone for short periods of time so that all the time on DC is not in only uploading. Say like 15-30 min forced slot aquire and have a limit of say 1-3 forced grants. Which could be done like every 3 hours or so.
Any old user just grabbing a free slot from u? That doesn't seem very wise. U can already autogrant to favorite users.
Pothead wrote:Also with DSL lines, an upload of over 80% of total available bandwith reduces download speed to about 10% of it's maximium. Any upload over 20kb/s kills my download speed (which i'm not too arsed about as i hardly ever download, but it's nice to be able to once every so often). And that's 20kb/s for ALL programs which need the internet, not just dc.
I don't think that's true as a general statement. With ADSL (assymmetric) the upload traffic should never cut into the remainder of the download traffic. That is the download rate minus the upload rate. So for 768/384, 768 - 384 = 384, so there should be 384 kbps of down bandwidth that the upload cannot cut into. That's because of the division of the timeslices into uptime/downtime and downtime. 100% of the time slices are available for incoming traffic but only 50% of the time slices are available for outgoing traffic. If ur uploads are cutting into ur reserved download time, then something is wrong.
repattila wrote:Btw, with some connections, i suppose almost with all of that which has smaller upload, limiting upload is a must, cos otherwise ur whole upload bandwith can be esaly taken, leaving none for acknowledge packets and by this slowing download a lot, even resulting in not equally divided upload.
What ur basically talking about is Quality of Service. IP already provides a means of tagging traffic by importance. All DC would have to do is mark its traffic as lower priority and then the rest of ur system would never be starved out. The only problem is that I don't think that function has widespread implementation. Somebody would have to do some research on implementing that on windows. And even if it were done that would give the packet shapers one more indicator to shape on.

LA
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

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

Post by [NL]Pur » 2006-05-28 03:48

loadadmira wrote:
Pothead wrote:Also with DSL lines, an upload of over 80% of total available bandwith reduces download speed to about 10% of it's maximium. Any upload over 20kb/s kills my download speed (which i'm not too arsed about as i hardly ever download, but it's nice to be able to once every so often). And that's 20kb/s for ALL programs which need the internet, not just dc.
I don't think that's true as a general statement. With ADSL (assymmetric) the upload traffic should never cut into the remainder of the download traffic. That is the download rate minus the upload rate. So for 768/384, 768 - 384 = 384, so there should be 384 kbps of down bandwidth that the upload cannot cut into. That's because of the division of the timeslices into uptime/downtime and downtime. 100% of the time slices are available for incoming traffic but only 50% of the time slices are available for outgoing traffic. If ur uploads are cutting into ur reserved download time, then something is wrong.
Pothead is correct, Timeslicing is done on a lower level of networks, i think Pothead is referering to the overhead that comes with the TCP/ip

Pothead
Posts: 223
Joined: 2005-01-15 06:55

Post by Pothead » 2006-05-28 05:27

You might not think it's true, but that doesn't make it not true. I'm refering to the fact that if i upload over 20kb/s i cannot download more than 10kb/s. Whereas if i upload at 16kb/s, i can download at 120kb/s. Quite i bit of difference in download speed, for just 4kb/s upload.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-05-28 15:03

Now that just seems really wrong to me. What are ur line specs? If uploading at 20kbps tanked my connection I would call up my ISP and complain. Either something is wrong or they are seriously messing with u.
NL Pur wrote:Pothead is correct, Timeslicing is done on a lower level of networks,
I'm talking about the timeslicing at the hardware level. From my modem to their DSLAM.
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

Quattro
Posts: 166
Joined: 2006-01-11 09:23

Post by Quattro » 2006-05-29 02:42

it's quite common for extensive uploads to kill all downloads...
i had it with 3 different ISP's now

1 ADSL ISP
1 Cable ISP
and a 10/10 or 100/100 ISP

on the asynchronous lines a full upload kills download
on the synchronous lines it does too but that's quite obvious
You can send a message around the world in 1/7 of a second; yet it may take several years to move a simple idea through a 1/4 inch of human skull.

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

Post by [NL]Pur » 2006-05-29 04:30

It's normal, you need an amount of available upload to be able to download.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-05-29 17:03

OK so ur talking about the situation where the upstream is so pathetic that it's screwing up ur TCP ACK's needed to get the next packet of ur download. That is truly pathetic! :D We need UDP downloads to circumvent that problem.

LA
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

CB-Goldy
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-05-24 17:20

Post by CB-Goldy » 2006-06-11 00:41

GargoyleMT wrote:
CB-Goldy wrote:I propose though that DC++have it own limiter but to a degree where it's impossible abuse. You can limit your upload but only from 1-25KiB from your highest consistant upload.
I'm not sure how that equates to impossible to abuse. 1-25 KiB/s is a pretty wide range, for normal upload streams.
CB-Goldy wrote:I was wondering if it would be feasable to have a option where downloaders can have the option of granting themselfes a single slot from someone for short periods of time
It sounds like you're asking DC++ to be able to "grant itself" a download slot on another user? I wouldn't like it if I had more uploads than configured. I already give 100% of my bandwidth to uploads (resulting in a 22.something upload ratio), if someone wants a slot, all they have to do is wait. I'd prefer to reward people who are patient.


If what you're asking for is right, you'd be better off phrasing it as "slot rotation", where you'd limit a slot to a time or byte limit if there are waiting users. Shareaza uses something like this. I'm not sure it would be received favorably in DC, but the reaction to your phrasing would probably be overwhelmingly negative.
I'd say your right about rephrasing it, tried getting it down before I forget what I wanted to say but in any case "Slot Rotation" I think is a good idea. It gives everyone a chance to download at least a little bit for a little while. There were times when I had to wait nearly a month to get a download from someone and at the moment I'm waiting right now again.. (been roughly 3-1/2 weeks. :O).

The abuse I'm talking about is when people choose to use a Net Limiter to block off people from uploading off of them. At 1-25 KiB I figured would be fair because I though most had a decent upload speed like 60-100 KiB. I just though that maybe DC can control this rather than relying on OP's trying to find out who the hell is using the Net Limiters and such. Many Hubs don't allow the use of net limiter for that reason people tend to use it for bad purposes.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-11 08:29

So that's nothing. I waited over a year to complete a file.

LA
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

Quattro
Posts: 166
Joined: 2006-01-11 09:23

Post by Quattro » 2006-06-11 09:01

lordadmira wrote:So that's nothing. I waited over a year to complete a file.

LA
one file?
:shock:
why wait for so long?
You can send a message around the world in 1/7 of a second; yet it may take several years to move a simple idea through a 1/4 inch of human skull.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-12 05:18

Nobody online had the file. And I never found the original guy again for a year. It was awesome. :)
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2006-06-12 22:31

CB-Goldy wrote:The abuse I'm talking about is when people choose to use a Net Limiter to block off people from uploading off of them. At 1-25 KiB I figured would be fair because I though most had a decent upload speed like 60-100 KiB.
FYI, here are the upload speeds of the last three connections I was on: 128 Kib/s (16 KiB/s), 384 Kib/s (48 KiB/s), and 800 Kib/s (100 KiB/s). I think the 100 KiB/s is unusual for the USA.

I don't get it, what connection should I be drawing between people abusing Netlimiter and DC++ implementing its own upload/download limiting?

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-13 15:33

What's "Kib/s"?
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

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

Post by ullner » 2006-06-13 16:50

Kilobinary bits per second.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-13 21:27

Mmm. So who measures bit rates in 2^10 units? Bits are measured in 10^3 units. Bytes are measured in 2^10 units.

LA

P.S. I figured out how to get rid of those ridiculous kibbles and bits units. Just take the language file and change all the occurances of kibbles and mibbles etc to kB and MB. Then load that language file into DC in the settings. So nice to stick one in the eye of the metric lobby. :)
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

poy
Posts: 83
Joined: 2006-04-03 15:55

Post by poy » 2006-06-14 10:28

lordadmira wrote:change all the occurances of kibbles and mibbles etc to kB and MB.
but are kiB / MiB the same as kB / MB?

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

Post by ullner » 2006-06-14 11:24

No. We have documented the binary units in the help file.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-14 23:16

poy wrote:but are kiB / MiB the same as kB / MB?
They are the same. kiB and MiB came about from some government beaurocrat who was miffed that computer byte units weren't submitting to the bulldozer of globalization. Hence kibbles were born so that in his own mind kB could be inline with other kilo- units. Somewhere along the line Arne came under the influence of that social engineering squad.

I bet this came from the same type of people who wanted computer manufacturers to stop saying master and slave device because it was "insensitive". PC run amuk.

LA
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

Todi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 699
Joined: 2003-03-04 12:16
Contact:

Post by Todi » 2006-06-15 01:56

lordadmira wrote:They are the same. kiB and MiB came about from some government beaurocrat who was miffed that computer byte units weren't submitting to the bulldozer of globalization. Hence kibbles were born so that in his own mind kB could be inline with other kilo- units. Somewhere along the line Arne came under the influence of that social engineering squad.
Trolling or just confused?

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

Post by ullner » 2006-06-15 04:18

My bet is on both.

lordadmira
Posts: 52
Joined: 2003-03-12 00:06
Location: Zinzinnati

Post by lordadmira » 2006-06-15 12:31

More like inspired.
Anata ga baka da! Repent!

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

Post by ullner » 2006-06-15 17:28

By actual trolls in the woods? Scary.

Locked