some other kind of priority queing for uploads... + notes.

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

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
corower
Posts: 4
Joined: 2005-01-16 08:07

some other kind of priority queing for uploads... + notes.

Post by corower » 2005-01-16 09:35

first of all - DC++ is great work, i'm on dc since late 2001, and since then terabytes of data have been transfered both ways in and out my DC client. i still prefer vanilla DC++ (ok, i'm just to lazy to try anything else, as DC++ fits me a lot).

as far as i could not open dcplusplus.sf.net/bugs (it barked something about maintenance), i just thought to discuss my idea (or troubles) here...
i'll try to keep short.
i wish there would be a feature, giving me the ability to disconect a user who is downloading from me _significant_ amount of data at _really_ slow rate, when there is an alternate location in any means more appropriate than me. the triger might be either total time left (2 days sound a reasonable maximum for me). maybe some kind of redirect message could be in help ? the same technique might be used when one must leave - the users downloading from me should be able to know - they have an alternate location.

the reason i am asking .. if keeping simple - to encourage lazy users, who are using first (and only the first) search result, use a bit more searching and really improve their speed.

<font size=-2 color=gray>
the background : i have a really fast connection - fast ethernet to my provider. me and neigbours are all tied up in campus-like network, mostly built on FE. so the speeds are _really_ good (several megabytes per second). this net is tied up with its ISP at 20-30 Mbits. The ISP itself is tied up with other "local whales" (big ISPs) through an exchange, the links to other ISPs are either multimegabit FR's or FE or GE. Nearly half of users in Latvia are tied up in home networks (using ethernet or FE), most of others are on different DSLs (local telecom spreads it's word). the speed "inside" any one of "ethernet" providers are generally high (hundreds of KBps are usual, 2MBps+ are not rare). however - the situation is completely different when clients are not using the same ISP. some ISPs (especially small ones, having relatively weak links to their upstream prov) or their upstreem provider istelf might use "context sensitive shaping" - thus rendering transfers really slow (5KB/s or even less). as the users are somewhat split up over about ten popular hubs (differing by share limit, location, rules and so on) the need to keep many open hubs (i keep 6) constantly open is logical. that way i am becomming overwhelmed by slow leechers. what is bad - they're leeching popjunk, avialable at tens of other sources. what is worse - as they start eating up my mere 16 slots - the hi speed transfers to others are becomming really slow (the sped might drop several times), and overall performance is droping also. it might not be the issue when one has really fast system, but i do not. as i care and i share - i wish i could do more. but i can't. besides - they'e harming me. also, i am sharing actively, most of DSLs can stay active also (if not using misconfigured winXP), about one third of ethernet users are bihind NATs and can't use active mode. most of users being passive are using winXP with firewalls not allowing active connections.</font>

upd:: . sorry, it seems, that i've missed some posts about bandwidth in general while skimming the topics... if you beleave that the answer is not necessary - just remain silent.

might i mention also that it would be pretty nice to allow let's say more slots if someone is trying to download from specific folder... ? that way i could give a bit greater chance to get any rare thing from me... i think i could work like this - if i have free slots - the plain old way. when all "standart" slots are used up AND user i requesting something from RARE folder - he is given one of extra slots. when these end up - the user gets "no more conn's".
p.s. yes, i know, it might be discussed, and for sure it is almost several times discusse din forum... but i could not find these reqs in "unfocial requestlist" - the first thread in this forum.
Last edited by corower on 2005-01-16 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by cologic » 2005-01-16 14:04

Settings -> Sharing -> Automatically open an extra slot if speed is below ___ kB/s

PseudonympH
Forum Moderator
Posts: 366
Joined: 2004-03-06 02:46

Post by PseudonympH » 2005-01-16 16:01

Forgetting, of course, the fact that it's borked currently and may be fixed in 0.669.

corower
Posts: 4
Joined: 2005-01-16 08:07

Post by corower » 2005-01-16 21:05

cologic wrote:Settings -> Sharing -> Automatically open an extra slot if speed is below ___ kB/s
.
no, no, no. still at ANY time i have 1-2 users leeching at reasonable speeds (let's say more than 50KB/s. and just opening more slots for giving away crap that is found in other 15+ locations on every of hubs i am on... i do not beleave it's OK.

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

Re: some other kind of priority queing for uploads... + note

Post by GargoyleMT » 2005-01-17 12:03

corower wrote:i wish there would be a feature, giving me the ability to disconect a user who is downloading from me _significant_ amount of data at _really_ slow rate, when there is an alternate location in any means more appropriate than me. the triger might be either total time left (2 days sound a reasonable maximum for me). maybe some kind of redirect message could be in help ? the same technique might be used when one must leave - the users downloading from me should be able to know - they have an alternate location.

Sorry, you've said some magic words there - "disconnect a downloader." No. Unconditionally.

If there was some way to pass along alternate sources, then doing that instead might be a solution, but as is, DC++ cannot do that. There's also no method of "Redirecting" their downloads. The best you could do is make a custom $Error message that their client would display.

You're basically penalizing users for having a slow connection to you. That's what the feature that cologic suggested is intended to help with. (Since it cannot be fixed.)

corower
Posts: 4
Joined: 2005-01-16 08:07

Post by corower » 2005-01-18 19:50

then.. what about some kind of redirect message, which might also be a warning for older versions ? it might be sent via plain message (no need to remake server), the reaction might be switchable (like - old style = no user redirects, and new style - accept redirect suggestions). no big changes to protocol, just an addition ?

PseudonympH
Forum Moderator
Posts: 366
Joined: 2004-03-06 02:46

Post by PseudonympH » 2005-01-18 20:13

The NMDC protocol is so crappy that any addition amounts to a fairly major change. And no, this is still a bad idea.

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

Post by cologic » 2005-01-18 21:40

You're sharing files you wish others not to download?

Guitarm
Forum Moderator
Posts: 385
Joined: 2004-01-18 15:38

Post by Guitarm » 2005-01-19 09:33

cologic wrote:You're sharing files you wish others not to download?
Seems like a strange way to administrate your machine/share :wink:
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."

Sedulus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 687
Joined: 2003-01-04 09:32
Contact:

Post by Sedulus » 2005-01-19 10:07

Guitarm wrote:
cologic wrote:You're sharing files you wish others not to download?
Seems like a strange way to administrate your machine/share :wink:

I do not find this odd at all.

imagine I'm sharing popular open source tools tutorial movies e.g. about raw(8), Bitchx(1), who(1), ar(1), less(1), nice(1), or whereis(1), more(1), as(1), and I also share the source for these programs and they are way larger than a minislot. so, everyone has an equal shot at getting the files.

now, the bandwidth you paid for, has to be used, so the movies stay. but I feel it's more important to let users get the programs than the tutorial movies.

the BCDC++ upload queue does help here. I check it every now and then to allow users with an odd (non-movie) request to get a slot. I don't know what would be a reasonable or logical, or easy to implement fix for the issue is. but can I agree with why corower would want a feature that prioritizes some files over others.
http://dc.selwerd.nl/hublist.xml.bz2
http://www.b.ali.btinternet.co.uk/DCPlusPlus/index.html (TheParanoidOne's DC++ Guide)
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/dc (BSOD2600's Direct Connect FAQ)

Guitarm
Forum Moderator
Posts: 385
Joined: 2004-01-18 15:38

Post by Guitarm » 2005-01-19 12:09

Well, I get the idea, and sure, it's a nice way of handling your users with "odd" requests. But I still think it's a more complicated way than necessary to do it. But ok, if it's "easy" to implement in code........I won't argue about it.
"Nothing really happens fast. Everything happens at such a rate that by the time it happens, it all seems normal."

corower
Posts: 4
Joined: 2005-01-16 08:07

Post by corower » 2005-01-23 09:23

cologic wrote:You're sharing files you wish others not to download?


i did not say that. what am i saying - is that really often i know that a particular user has a better download location. like at the moment - i have 2 dudes downloading "blah blah blah blah" with speeds as low as one binary kilobyte (yes, ~1024 bytes) in second. a quick search shows me that there are 4 sources 3 of them at T3. i just am not beleaving that sitting on pipe and waiting at that speed to get more than a half GB is what they (users) really want. i can not promise to wait those 10 or whatever days to let them finish their downloads. and when i have 10 slots of 16 given out to these guys with speeds under 1 KB/s... i know that it's mostly because of internetwork shaping done by our providers.

on the other hand - if they would leech at reasonable speeds (like finishing their DLs in 10hrs or less) - i have no problems with sharing my stuff.

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

Post by ullner » 2005-01-23 11:45

corower wrote:a quick search shows me that there are 4 sources 3 of them at T3. i just am not beleaving that sitting on pipe and waiting at that speed to get more than a half GB is what they (users) really want.
The setting Connection type has nothing to do with the users real speed. Why is it bothering you when people are downloading so slow from you? PM them and tell them that they might consider switching sources considering the slow speed. If they don't want to switch, why force them?

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

Post by cologic » 2005-01-23 12:50

corower wrote:often i know that a particular user has a better download location. like at the moment - i have 2 dudes downloading "best of Muppet Show" with speeds as low as one binary kilobyte (yes, ~1024 bytes) in second. a quick search shows me that there are 4 sources 3 of them at T3. i just am not beleaving that sitting on pipe and waiting at that speed to get more than a half GB is what they (users) really want. i can not promise to wait those 10 or whatever days to let them finish their downloads. and when i have 10 slots of 16 given out to these guys with speeds under 1 KB/s... i know that it's mostly because of internetwork shaping done by our providers.

on the other hand - if they would leech at reasonable speeds (like finishing their DLs in 10hrs or less) - i have no problems with sharing my stuff.

This is precisely where
I, earlier in this thread, in response to which you said 'no, no, no' but then returned to a rationale fitting it very well, wrote:Settings -> Sharing -> Automatically open an extra slot if speed is below ___ kB/s
helps (once, according to PseudonympH's post, it's fixed). Further, since you're capable of greater speeds, users getting 1kB/s from you may not be able to download much faster from those ostensible T3 users (real T3 or fake), so your disconnections/redirections/whatever else would reasonably likely not end up helping them.

Locked