Leach Control

Archived discussion about features (predating the use of Bugzilla as a bug and feature tracker)

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
TRaNCe!S!T
Posts: 4
Joined: 2003-03-04 14:15

Leach Control

Post by TRaNCe!S!T » 2003-03-04 14:39

How about some sort of anti-leach control?

There is nothing more irritating than spending several hours or days as it has happened to me on several occasions trying to get a file from a host machine only to find that all the slots are taken by a leach or leaches simply hording every file on the host machines drive without any regard to the fact that someone else may like to get a file.

I have verified that this is indeed one of the things that occurs, as I have been able to monitor this behavior from my own machine. Several times a leach has actually logged on to my machine and sat there just sucking every single file from my shared drive. One individual over the course of two days!

It would be nice to set a limit on the amount of files or bandwidth someone is allowed to take per session or per day from a host machine. Of course we would also have an override on this fuction in case we are simply copying files machine to machine. This in my opinion will allow everyone more of an opportunity to share their resources with other people.

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

Re: Leech Control

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-03-04 20:15

Basically, you want "reasonable" limits on total transferred / time spent in a single slot, while other clients are connecting to you to try to download. (I've heard this practice called "slot hogging" too.)

I agree. I think that this goes hand in hand with a queue of people trying to download from you, giving a number and weighting someone based on their order, or some other characteristics is more "fair" than luck of the draw in retrying when a slot has been vacated.

Do you have any novel ideas on how to prevent people from setting "unreasonable" limits with respect to time or byte count?

Iceman[grrrr]
Forum Moderator
Posts: 58
Joined: 2003-01-03 11:30
Location: Québec, Canada
Contact:

Post by Iceman[grrrr] » 2003-03-04 21:05

just make it effective if people are trying to connect on you and all your slots are full... there won't be any advantage of putting low values there
DC++ QoS Person

TRaNCe!S!T
Posts: 4
Joined: 2003-03-04 14:15

Re: Leech Control

Post by TRaNCe!S!T » 2003-03-05 09:04

Quote

"Do you have any novel ideas on how to prevent people from setting "unreasonable" limits with respect to time or byte count?"


Sorry I do not have any novel ideas, just pointing out a weakness in the program that some people have decided to exploit at the expense of most honest users.

Other than counting downloads on a "per file" basis or as you said "time or byte count" I have no new ideas to offer.

Spykie
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:49
Contact:

Post by Spykie » 2003-03-05 09:13

so really you want DC to become ratio? :-/

Spykie just kicks someone when he is doing something like this to me

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-03-05 12:01

Spykie wrote:so really you want DC to become ratio? :-/

Spykie just kicks someone when he is doing something like this to me
What does that have to do with the price of beans?

Just because there is a line for slots doesn't mean that a ratio of uploads/downloads must be enforced. And as far as giving a boost to people who've let you download from them, what's the problem with that? The way I would implment it, everyone would still get a shot at downloading, nobody would get edged out.

Argonne
Posts: 11
Joined: 2003-03-05 12:34

simple solution:symlimiter (but to what problem)

Post by Argonne » 2003-03-05 13:16

:idea: I wonder why this has not been proposed more often (to my knowledge).

:? Basically I would not second a kind of "ratio" idea. In DC++ you can go to a hub which has a required share limit approximating your own share. There will then be enough for everyone. This is a major improvement.

I however do think that there should some sort of uplimiter. Some people are sharing connections with a group of households and connections also get bogged down if the upload band is completely full. But I also strongly feel that none of the solutions in operation are any good and I would ban all users of hacked clients on sight, if I were an OP. :!:

The solution is simple: a symmetric uplimiter which would limit your downband equally to the upband :idea: . Economics, after all, is about division of scarce resources and this is well in accordance with a kind of "invisible hand" - if you believe in that sort of thing. A limitless uplimiter automatically leads to a "tragedy of the commons" because there is no cost to using it (other that ban, but this is applied to everyone). I am a bit divided as to whether it should be percentage-based or kb/s based. In some DSL connections there can be 1000/384, so that the upband is smaller. In this case a percentagge might be better, but less equitable. A kb/s based symlimiter would certainly be harsch but nobody could complain about it. I you need to use it you would use it. I personally have a 10 Mbit connection but might want to limit speed to maybe 400-500 kb/s in order not to make myself too noticeable on the network - I am also sharing the connection but this is not usually a problem.

Any thoughts? 8)

sarf
Posts: 382
Joined: 2003-01-24 05:43
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: simple solution:symlimiter (but to what problem)

Post by sarf » 2003-03-05 17:34

Uploadlimiting has been discussed to death... several times over, ("Die you filthy topic! Die! <WHACK>") but it just refuses to die ("Quick! Use the stake! Fill the coffin with boiling hot holy water! Do something!").

Anyhow... the reasoning is this:
  • There already are clients which allow uploadlimiting without any sort of penalty.
  • Those that enforce some sort of penalty can be tricked/hacked to not enforce the penalty (my version is such a poor specimen).
Thus, the only reason for people not using an uploadlimiting client is a) because they are nice, honest, outstanding people who feel the urge to share equally with everyone and/or b) have not heard of the uploadlimiting clients... which they will. Eventually.

The Rating System (tm) will save us from the woes of the previous unenlightened times when we essentially "trusted" people to "do the right thing" because "it's nice and honest". For more information, dial 1-800-VOLKRIS and prepare for a few hours of propaganda and trust metrics. ;)
Or search the board for "volkris AND rating AND system"... that works, too (and that should make this post pop up there too - whee!).

<blatant plug mode on>
Note: Do not use the latest DC++k version and expect miracles... it's know to crash on some people's computers (everyones but mine it seems based on the mail I've received).
<blatant plug mode off>

For everyones edification (yay! yet another big word), ratios are not implied when we talk about ways to combat the "download every file you have so I can hog your slot"-clients/users.
Personally, I detest such persons, but there is no protection in the clients of today... I made a test version of DC++k with a user-modifiable number of bytes/files before the user was disconnected. I think that using the twin parameters of time spent hogging a slot and bytes downloaded would be good - but your mileage may vary.

Sarf
---
Think of hummingbirds as the flying penises of flowers

TRaNCe!S!T
Posts: 4
Joined: 2003-03-04 14:15

LEECH CONTROL

Post by TRaNCe!S!T » 2003-03-05 22:31

Thanks everyone for your participation, and your inputs!

Basically it comes down to this:

We should not care how much the LEECHER has contributed but he/she should not be allowed to monopolize the host(s) system(s) port(s) until he/she is done raping the host system(s) or is kicked off by an angry host operator.

The host system should be given some sort of control as to how many files someone is allowed to download on a per session/user or per day basis so that everyone in that hub is given the chance (not necessarily equal) to download from that same host system without someone else monopolizing the host system(s) port(s) indefinitely as it now happening.
I would also suggest keeping a fixed default minimum value on these settings just to keep the host system operator honest.

A simple way to accomplish this may be by IP logging. The system maintains a log of who connected, when and for how long. That information can then be used to ban that user until the specified time limit has passed. The alternative as some of us have suggested is a bandwidth meter but again using the IP address as the reference that we track.

Sure there are clients out there that can be used and are readily customized for this purpose, but I for one would not risk having my IP address banned for the sake of this. My request is to keep everyone honest and keep the LEECHING or PORT HOGING to a minimum.

Thanks again.

NoFiX
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-02-23 10:39

Post by NoFiX » 2003-03-06 03:40

Oh, comon, sit in line like the rest of us, ya god-damn hypocrite. If you're not a leech, you shouldn't really have a problem waiting in the hub while you wait for that RARE slot?

So go fuck off... there's people just like you that don't mind sharing their shares while they're waiting for those rare files that *SHOULD* take time to get. After all, you're not paying for anything here you fuckin leech.

yilard
Posts: 66
Joined: 2003-01-11 06:04
Location: Slovakia

Re: LEECH CONTROL

Post by yilard » 2003-03-06 04:06

TRaNCe!S!T wrote:We should not care how much the LEECHER has contributed but he/she should not be allowed to monopolize the host(s) system(s) port(s) until he/she is done raping the host system(s) or is kicked off by an angry host operator.
In fact what you're suggesting would be more helpful for leechers that to get rid of them. Btw, there is discussion regarding more sophisticated approach (which I consider viable). Just search for "rating server" topic on the forum.
In the age of super-boredom/hype and mediocrity/celebrate relentlessness/menace to society --KMFDM

TRaNCe!S!T
Posts: 4
Joined: 2003-03-04 14:15

Post by TRaNCe!S!T » 2003-03-06 17:32

NoFiX wrote:Oh, comon, sit in line like the rest of us, ya god-damn hypocrite. If you're not a leech, you shouldn't really have a problem waiting in the hub while you wait for that RARE slot?

So go fuck off... there's people just like you that don't mind sharing their shares while they're waiting for those rare files that *SHOULD* take time to get. After all, you're not paying for anything here you fuckin leech.
NoFiX do you realize what a MOTHER FUCKING ASSHOLE YOU ARE?

Speak for yourself you CRUDE LEECHING BASTARD. Obviously what I'm trying to combat must of hit home with you didn't BITCH?

No doubt that you are one of those shameless ASSHOLES who LEECH and don't give nothing back to the community, aren't you PUSSY.

Locked