Upload Speed Limiting

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

Moderator: Moderators

Locked

Should DC++ Have Upload Speed Limiting to Manage ADSL Connections.

Yes
108
61%
No
68
39%
 
Total votes: 176

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Upload Speed Limiting

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-04 07:51

Ok, I know this has been flamed, spoken, debated and killed to death and back again but sorry it has to be opened up again..

Why? Because it is critical that DC++ have upload speed limiting to support the asynchronous nature of ADSL. ADSL is not going to go away, it is in fact the broadband most people will have access to. I know people are going to try to abuse this feature but such abuse can be monitored which is exactly what is done now via the B:xx and hub bots (ie General bot) can be configured to kick members who set limits too low for the hub.

I know why this feature is NOT in DC++ but I feel that the reasons behind that are flawed, as I feel it is NOT the role of the P2P client to limit certain features, instead that policing action should always be the role of the HUB and I have a HUB full of people who upload limit and that hub upload limits are well managed via the B:XX.

Please Vote..

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

Post by Spykie » 2003-01-04 08:14

I think it's ok to have it, caus it's allready used and now abused anyway, so why not make it legal to use it, and have a good way of limiting it, and giving hub owners the option to easily block it. the fakers and leechers are there allready.

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

Post by Iceman[grrrr] » 2003-01-04 09:07

there is no real way to block users from abusing it. The code source is open so they always have the choice to modify it so they won't be caught!
DC++ QoS Person

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-04 09:17

it is easier to set a fake description than to impliment a good upload-limit.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-04 09:37

Iceman[grrrr] wrote:there is no real way to block users from abusing it. The code source is open so they always have the choice to modify it so they won't be caught!
Well, the genie was let out of the bottle long ago - first there was Alyandon's DC++ with upload limiter (B: in the tag), then there are two mods based on Alyandon's (BlackClaw and another, I don't remember who it was, but I do remember sending him a few e-mails because he removed B: from the tag)...

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

Post by Sedulus » 2003-01-04 09:54

no..
the only acceptable thing I think would be total speed limiting, UP and DOWN.
but methinks this should be implemented on a lower level, i.e. QoS and networking based traffic speed limiting. this would be more accurate as well as just more useful.

I'm guessing that this will be implemented in newer windowze versions

no need to bother specific apps with this

/sed
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)

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-04 09:57

ivulfusbar wrote:it is easier to set a fake description than to impliment a good upload-limit.


Hmmm BCDC seems to do upload limits fine...

Yes sure you going to get people that fake the tags but on the same hand you cannot turn around to your hub base and say sorry people your ADSL connections are going to get flooded and your downloads will turn in 56K connections because 1 or 2 people might just happen to abuse this feature. If I did that I would have a hub full of noone..

Stopping implement a feature because somone *might* abuse it is not really a good reason, more so when that feature is kind of critical to anyone on ADSL..

*Gets of soapbox now*

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-04 10:04

Sedulus wrote:no..
I'm guessing that this will be implemented in newer windowze versions
no need to bother specific apps with this

/sed


If you are LUCKY this might be implemented in the new version of Windows out in 2004, waiting until 2004 hoping for a solution and then having to upgrade just to get your p2p client to work within the limitation of a crappy ADSL protocol.

It is a great long term solution but lets concentrate on what we need to do now..

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 06:27

ozgreg wrote:
ivulfusbar wrote:it is easier to set a fake description than to impliment a good upload-limit.


Hmmm BCDC seems to do upload limits fine...

(--cut--)

Stopping implement a feature because somone *might* abuse it is not really a good reason, more so when that feature is kind of critical to anyone on ADSL..


Many hubs already came to terms with upload-limited clients. Number of them implemented policies of "minimum required bandwidth per slot", mostly 3-4 KB/s per slot.

The upload-limited clones of DC++ are widely available. There is no turning back - only way to stop them would be to close the source. Instead of trying to pretend that there is no issue, developers should IMO implement UL working better than Alandyon or BC, with similar reporting in the description tag.

The "use small send buffer" option was a step in right direction, but now is the time to help those, for which this does not work.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 06:59

the hubs i mostly visit is 10MBit where a usual download is between 250-1200KB/s. And upload limit would not be appriciated in these hubs.

To have bandwidth-policy is useless if you have people than can fake it very easily.

All laws/polices are meaningless if they can't be controlled.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-05 08:28

It seems that some people have a hard time understanding that most of the world still has 512/128 kbps connections. I have 2048/512, and I'm very happy to have it. Still, without upload limiting my max download speed was around 10 kB/s... When I limited my upload to 61 kB/s, I can now easily download with 250 kB/s... and still my ul:dl ratio is around 2.

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 08:36

many of us is used to full duplex 10Mbit.... not our fault and yes most of our thoughts consern our own experience with dc.

move-to-a-more-devolped-country-and-get-a-better-connection-ly'ers ,))
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 08:36

ivulfusbar wrote:the hubs i mostly visit is 10MBit where a usual download is between 250-1200KB/s. And upload limit would not be appriciated in these hubs.

To have bandwidth-policy is useless if you have people than can fake it very easily.

All laws/polices are meaningless if they can't be controlled.


It is this type of thinking that has prevented DC from getting upload limiting in the first place. I would love those speeds just posted but they are simply not available. As it was pointed out, 512/128 or if you are very lucky 1500/256 are the norm's now a days and it is WAY overdue for DC++ to implement features REQUIRED for the majority of people to make DC work or sadly DC is not going to make it because who wants to run a P2P client that kills your web experience.
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 08:40

ivulfusbar wrote:many of us is used to full duplex 10Mbit.... not our fault and yes most of our thoughts consern our own experience with dc.

move-to-a-more-devolped-country-and-get-a-better-connection-ly'ers ,))


Hmm more developed Country than England, US or Australia that only use Cable or ADSL technology to bring Internet to the home..

Which country did you have in mind?
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 08:41

finland or sweden for an example ,))
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 08:43

ivulfusbar wrote:finland or sweden for an example ,))


I am sorry but I really find this type of post not useful to the thread.
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 09:05

ivulfusbar wrote:many of us is used to full duplex 10Mbit.... not our fault and yes most of our thoughts consern our own experience with dc.

Then be happy about that and stay in your 10Mbit-only hubs. AND DON'T SPOIL IT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS FORTUNATE.

Or force them to find modified clients with invisible limiting, built-in fakesharing, download killing and similar features that will make sharing worse for all of us.

ivulfusbar wrote:move-to-a-more-devolped-country-and-get-a-better-connection-ly'ers ,))

Why not? If you're gonna foot the bill for moving, language lessons, getting work permit and stuff... maybe you'd prefer to buy me a business rate E1+ link on which I would not need to use limiting?

I'm fed up with people saying "I don't need it so you don't need it".
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 09:11

i understand some of your problems. i have friends in australia who have to pay for each Byte downloads/uploaded etc. (so i send packages of cds to them sometimes).

But you have to understand we have different needs from dc. And this feature will be used to fake, currently i know that SUNET (the swedish-univ-net) at certain unveristies and campus has introduced a warning-system so that the users get warnings if they use up more than 5GB upload in a day (for an example). They would be very very tempted to use this feature.

Personly i don't like file-sharing when its not duplex, i don't find it fair. And yes i would guess 99.99% of the user that doesn't have duplex wants it.

it-will-be-a-problem-for-us-if-this-get-to-widley-used-ly'ers
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 09:12

Iceman[grrrr] wrote:there is no real way to block users from abusing it. The code source is open so they always have the choice to modify it so they won't be caught!


MOST of the people don't really want to abuse it. See, the three publicly available mods with upload limiting don't have "leech" features and report the limit for hub owners to check.

And abusers can use a variety of other clients already, with eg. dctc having fakeshare functionality built-in in the standard version...
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-05 09:13

ivulfusbar wrote:many of us is used to full duplex 10Mbit.... not our fault and yes most of our thoughts consern our own experience with dc.
Full duplex? Full duplex just means that you can upload and download at the same time - all cable and ADSL connections allow this. There was a nice explanation why download speed drops when your upload is maxed out (you're uploading with the maximum speed your line allows) - but that has nothing to do with duplex.

And... if everybody would move to Sweden, I think we'd have a slight problem with the space...

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 09:24

ivulfusbar wrote:i understand some of your problems. i have friends in australia who have to pay for each Byte downloads/uploaded etc. (so i send packages of cds to them sometimes).


We will not go into the stupid download limits we all have to suffer right now.. What you may not understand is Australia is moving to free P2P within a state (States when compared to Europe are big enough to call a countries) :) and of course we want to use DC because of the way it creates a community feel. However to set up P2P hubs with a decent P2P sharing client, the client must work with the limitations of ADSL.

Sadly yes we would all love SDSL or XDLS but ADSL is a standard now so the problem of not allowing upload limiting cannot be ignored. I know more than a few countries that are moving or have moved to ADSL so this problem is not going to go away but if it is ignored, then what will happen instead is people will simply say forget DC as it will not suit the requirement of ADSL which personally I would find a real shame.
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 09:38

ivulfusbar wrote:i understand some of your problems. i have friends in australia who have to pay for each Byte downloads/uploaded etc. (so i send packages of cds to them sometimes).

And he definitely doesn't need any kind of control over bandwidth usage, nosiree...

ivulfusbar wrote:But you have to understand we have different needs from dc. And this feature will be used to fake, currently i know that SUNET (the swedish-univ-net) at certain unveristies and campus has introduced a warning-system so that the users get warnings if they use up more than 5GB upload in a day (for an example). They would be very very tempted to use this feature.

Instead you prefer that they shut down their clients and no one can get anything?

Please explain to me, in simple terms, what great harm will having official UL in DC++ do to you? Especially if you, don't needing it, disable the option on your system?

ivulfusbar wrote:Personly i don't like file-sharing when its not duplex, i don't find it fair. And yes i would guess 99.99% of the user that doesn't have duplex wants it.

Let's see... I'm using limited version and have 42 GB uploaded total, 50 GB downloaded total as DC++ counted. Ratio 0.84. Looks kinda duplex to me...

ivulfusbar wrote:it-will-be-a-problem-for-us-if-this-get-to-widley-used-ly'ers

Any cheater ALREADY can get clients that are much better for cheating.

I think you still don't have any idea how "great" ADSL is. Think about common 512/128 setup. This is max 12.8KB/s upload, which slows download to 2-3KB/s. Limited to 11KB/s, people lose less than 10% (much less due to crappy limiting code in BCDC++) but I get ability to download normally and maybe even see some web or get mail.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 10:07

have an interesting idea (i think)...

if this got implimented (i hope not).

Why not leave the decission up to the hub, if the "hub" $Support BandWidthLimiting, then enable it in client2client handshakes/downloads/uploads etc.


i-think-this-forum-lost-its-virginity-with-this-thread-ly'ers ;))
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 10:23

ivulfusbar wrote:have an interesting idea (i think)...

if this got implimented (i hope not).

Why not leave the decission up to the hub, if the "hub" $Support BandWidthLimiting, then enable it in client2client handshakes/downloads/uploads etc.

And if hub doesn't, what happens? That's right, users that need the feature are fucked as it gets disabled. Great! Maybe rename it to "$Supports BendOver"?

I have even better idea. Leave it as it is in mods, with limit description in the tag. If hub owner doesn't want users to get my files, he's free to add a script to disconnect me.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

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

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-01-05 10:38

please stop these flamish replies.

Its up to the HubOwner together with the users that join a hub to set up rules about sharelimits, bandwidthlimits etc.

If you don't like their terms/rules, you are absolutely free to join some other hub.
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 10:47

[quote="ivulfusbar"]have an interesting idea (i think)...

if this got implimented (i hope not).

Why not leave the decission up to the hub, if the "hub" $Support BandWidthLimiting, then enable it in client2client handshakes/downloads/uploads etc.[quote]

I think this is a step forward in a postive direction, as an alterative we could have a $denyuploadlimiting instead which will disable the upload speed limiting feature(s) and max out the connection.

I am thrilled to see some thought behind how we can do this..
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

FRANKE
Posts: 26
Joined: 2003-01-03 11:29
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by FRANKE » 2003-01-05 10:56

I think ivulfusbar is right, why do hubs have bots that kick people if they don’t share the right amount ?, because if they didn’t then "nobody" would be sharing.
Look at kazaa or similar p2p networks, have these kind of rules does not exist, they have over double the amount of users, but the amount of shared data is far less.

My point is: if bandwidth limits are available to the users, then most of "them" will set it to 1 or 2 kb/s.

If you having so many problems with you upload being maxed out, then change windows's(or other OS) interval between the packages.
For the newest release of MulTiBoT visit www.cwain.dk

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-05 11:07

ivulfusbar wrote:please stop these flamish replies.

Its up to the HubOwner together with the users that join a hub to set up rules about sharelimits, bandwidthlimits etc.

If you don't like their terms/rules, you are absolutely free to join some other hub.

Sure it is. If someone sets up a hub, it's THEIR hub to rule and they don't have obligation to let me or anyone else in.

Simply the means you proposed are bad. What you suggest is for the hub to disable functionality in client, probably without warning. Bad idea especially whan you have "follow redirects automatically".

What mod authors did and I consider to be a better way, is to make client report to hub that it is using this feature and for hub scripts to check policy and allow connection or disconnect/redirect if the setting do not match the policy.

Remember, limiting is not for fun. It's necessary for many people to get any real use from DC and may be a way to avoid "excess transfer" charges for some.

FRANKE wrote:My point is: if bandwidth limits are available to the users, then most of "them" will set it to 1 or 2 kb/s.

In this case the script will show them message telling that their settings are not allowed by hub policy and disconnect. In exactly the same way it disconnects for not having large enough share, not enough slots or too many hubs connected.

This was already implemented by some operators and appears to work just fine.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-05 11:15

FRANKE wrote:If you having so many problems with you upload being maxed out, then change windows's(or other OS) interval between the packages.


Franke,

Sadly you cannot manage ADSL with a QOS, support for it simply does not exist so you have to go back to the client to implement a form of limiting to get around this issue.

It is a very widespread and common issue with ADSL, that is why when you look at the P2P programs they are all supporting upload limiting.

You mentioned bots for managing file sharing for me this is no different, you use a bot to control the minimum speed settings for the hub if upload speed settings are permitted.

Again I will repeat what I already said, you cannot deny a feature because it maybe abused by 1% of DC users, this is not a nice to have, very simply if DC is going to survive then it must have upload bandwidth limiting, home broadband is going to be ADSL if we like it nor not.
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

kaszkiet
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-01-05 22:17
Location: LaPorte

Majority of ppl use adsl

Post by kaszkiet » 2003-01-05 22:27

Nowdays at least in us majority of ppl cannot afford anything better than simply bradband.
I feel that it is not fair for users with high speed connection speak out here because they represent small minority that can actually afford some fast connections. I'm a highschool student and personally i cannot afford a T1 for 500 a month.
I think in order for DC++ to survive they need to think about a majority of useres who in reality really need this option to use DC++.
No matter what you do there will be always users abusing it. There isn't one thing that cannot be brokem.
Worrying about some ppl abusing it is simpy stupid.
I feel like d++ need to start thinking about their users bcuz if the don't u will see more and more ppl turning to laternate clients with leeching tools.
THIS OPTION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT VERSION :!: :!: :!: :!:
Kaszkiet - Can't stop us from sharing!!!

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

Re: Majority of ppl use adsl

Post by Iceman[grrrr] » 2003-01-05 23:02

kaszkiet wrote:THIS OPTION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT VERSION :!: :!: :!: :!:


I don't want to blast your bubble kaszkiet, but it may take a while before Arne has the time to set it up...
DC++ QoS Person

Struzball
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-01-05 22:57

Post by Struzball » 2003-01-05 23:47

the programmers dc++ don't even have to do anything to implement upload caps.. considering it's already been done and they have teh source there http://www.utrum.dyndns.org:8000/ if someone wants upload caps, they may as well use that. they may as well include it in the official release so we don't have to use a buggier version.

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-06 00:21

Struzball wrote:the programmers dc++ don't even have to do anything to implement upload caps.. considering it's already been done and they have teh source there http://www.utrum.dyndns.org:8000/ if someone wants upload caps, they may as well use that. they may as well include it in the official release so we don't have to use a buggier version.


Shudder have you seen the way BCDC implements upload bandwidth :-)
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-06 02:36

How does it do the limiting?

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-06 03:02

ender wrote:How does it do the limiting?


It does as an overall thing, which is fine however it also to divide the total overall bandwidth by slots and impose a per slot limit. Because it does not manage bandwidth down to a slot level you get the situation where a slot can and does grab more than it's fair share of the upload bandwidth.

For example - 20K Max upload should be 4 slots @ 5K each, instead you see 2 slots at 3K or 4K one at 7K the other at 6K etc..
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

Struzball
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-01-05 22:57

bcdc

Post by Struzball » 2003-01-06 03:14

alyandon is better but i do'nt think it has source available

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-06 03:20

Personally I have no problem with that - what if the remaining two users can't download faster? I remember while using Danzig's limiter version I never actually saw my total limit being used, because it it limited only on a per-slot basis (I had 50-60 kB/s set as limit, 7 slots, and I rarely saw my upload speed go beyond 40 kB/s, because a few users just couldn't download with more than 2-4 kB/s)

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-06 04:08

ender wrote:Personally I have no problem with that - what if the remaining two users can't download faster? I remember while using Danzig's limiter version I never actually saw my total limit being used, because it it limited only on a per-slot basis (I had 50-60 kB/s set as limit, 7 slots, and I rarely saw my upload speed go beyond 40 kB/s, because a few users just couldn't download with more than 2-4 kB/s)


I would agree with you if they where flooding the download(s) but experience has shown me that this IS not the case, it is just an issue with the way BCDC allocates bandwidth.
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

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

Post by cologic » 2003-01-06 14:13

ozgreg wrote:Shudder have you seen the way BCDC implements upload bandwidth

ender wrote:How does it do the limiting?

I've seen plenty of instances where BCDC++ horrendously misallocates bandwidth, but "instead you see 2 slots at 3K or 4K one at 7K the other at 6K" is such a slight imbalance that I can't see myself caring.
Struzball wrote:alyandon is better but i do'nt think it has source available

I mostly copied alyandon's upload limiting code (I'm the author of BCDC++); they thus should be fairly similar, though I've noted he's claimed to have improved his since 0.176 or 0.18 or so.

I noticed I set a parameter mystifyingly high; I'll set it to something reasonable in 0.22, and hopefully the upload limiting will improve.

As for alyandon not making available his source: his web site lists the phrase "Diffs included" after each available version.

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-06 16:52

cologic wrote:I noticed I set a parameter mystifyingly high; I'll set it to something reasonable in 0.22, and hopefully the upload limiting will improve.

When are you planning to release the new version?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

sandos
Posts: 186
Joined: 2003-01-05 10:16
Contact:

Post by sandos » 2003-01-06 17:57

If you have a old p120-ish box + 2 nics lying around, you can install linux + QoS. Linux can act as a bridge and also shape the traffic. I am planning to deploy one box just like this at our house´s very saturated 10mbps connection. Bridging means the box will work like a switch (it is in fact a 2-port switch): no network config changes at all, so no router/passive/active mode problems.

So modding dc++ isnt the only way to do this.

ozgreg
Posts: 14
Joined: 2003-01-04 07:22

Post by ozgreg » 2003-01-06 18:04

cologic wrote:
ozgreg wrote:Shudder have you seen the way BCDC implements upload bandwidth

ender wrote:How does it do the limiting?

I've seen plenty of instances where BCDC++ horrendously misallocates bandwidth, but "instead you see 2 slots at 3K or 4K one at 7K the other at 6K" is such a slight imbalance that I can't see myself caring.

Ah that was a good example I got a few more like 7K and 9K and 1K and 3K :-) Maybe that parameter you spoke about is causing that!!

PS: Can you allow 5K Upload Speed, Down Under we have 256/64K plans and 6K floods the upstream..
Restricted NS P2P DC Hub Admin

ender
Posts: 224
Joined: 2003-01-03 17:47

Post by ender » 2003-01-06 18:21

sandos wrote:If you have a old p120-ish box + 2 nics lying around, you can install linux + QoS. Linux can act as a bridge and also shape the traffic.
Better use BSD if you intend to shape the traffic, it's easier.

sandos
Posts: 186
Joined: 2003-01-05 10:16
Contact:

Post by sandos » 2003-01-07 07:29

ender wrote:
sandos wrote:If you have a old p120-ish box + 2 nics lying around, you can install linux + QoS. Linux can act as a bridge and also shape the traffic.
Better use BSD if you intend to shape the traffic, it's easier.


BSD+altq? Or do you mean bandwidth pipes that can be set in the firewall config? Altq always seemed a bit hairy to me. I did once research both linux and BSD when it comes to shaping, and I found the docs for linux being better and more, so I just choose that, besides I already was "at home" with linux, but Im sure BSD is also fine.

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

Post by cologic » 2003-01-07 09:09

maniak wrote:When are you planning to release the new version?

Now.

RobbeZ
Posts: 17
Joined: 2003-01-07 00:09

Post by RobbeZ » 2003-01-07 09:15

Spykie wrote:I think it's ok to have it, caus it's allready used and now abused anyway, so why not make it legal to use it, and have a good way of limiting it, and giving hub owners the option to easily block it. the fakers and leechers are there allready.


It's like he says :)
so why not :?:
Codito Ergo Sum

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

Post by Iceman[grrrr] » 2003-01-07 11:20

Because Arne doesn't want to :wink:
DC++ QoS Person

maniak
Posts: 21
Joined: 2003-01-05 06:01
Location: Warsaw, PL

Post by maniak » 2003-01-07 16:16

Iceman[grrrr] wrote:Because Arne doesn't want to :wink:

And he did say that several times. Well, it his project...

That said I must comment, that such approach is not going to make DC++ prime choice for ADSL users. In fact they will get mods like BCDC++ or turn to other DC clients.

While I definitely like DC++ I will prefer something that does not completely kill my connection.

And one thing... I've looked around forums of people that made DC++Blue. (Fakers and leeches all of them, of the worst kind). One thing they don't care about is bandwidth throttling - real leeches and fakers prefer "slot lockers" as these completely eliminate upload itself.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

DamionNH
Posts: 25
Joined: 2003-01-07 11:05

Post by DamionNH » 2003-01-08 14:45

Personally, I do like a client with bandwidth throttling. I use it to make sure I don't crash the company's router. yet still provide a good amount of bandwidth to people. I sit in a number of hubs, using two BCDC clients throttled about about 120kb/s and 170kb/s. it' works for me. I would like to see a better job done though where it shared the limit accross the slots more equal, or limited on a slot level. I know some people abuse anything, but I do see a need for this for some people. Let the ops sort out what ain't kosher. Of course I am NOT in favor of any client the allows the hiding of it's ability. BCDC has this ability which I don't like, wish it didn't. least using it I can share with more people with out fear of causing major problems with internet connection.
Owner of Lurkers Lair a Phoenix Rising Hub

Menchi
Posts: 18
Joined: 2003-01-10 06:52

Post by Menchi » 2003-01-10 07:46

DC is a community who’s only limitation is upload speed.
The slots system worked with this, a control is needed to finish it.
I would _prefer_ not to have a user connect to me with a u/d ratio slowing down their download from MY computer.

Seriously, the only reason I use a bandwidth limiter is so I can upload without the pain. Only people who want to upload can benefit from an upload limiter.

It will _not_ hurt anyone else since the cheaters already have pre-compiled versions.
“... real leeches and fakers prefer ‘slot lockers’...� is the best way I’ve seen it put.

What I would like to see is some sort of dynamic per slot guarantee.

Currently I give 30k/3 slots using the .181 client

This works great when I have 3 people that can download at 10k.
Even better, they don’t get "bullied" out by the more aggressive connections.

If a modem (or some poor soul that has ADSL but isn’t using a bandwidth limiter) connects to me then a bit of my upload is wasted. So why not guarantee bandwidth for the slower connections while _smoothly_ capping the most aggressive ones.

e.g.

30k/3slot = 10k/s
slot1,2,3 = 10k
total = 30k

60k/3slot = 20k/s
slot1 = 20k (maxed)
slot2 = 5k (56k)
slot3 = ~3k ('unlimited" ADSL)
total used ~27k

If the ADSL connection decides to disconnect/kick/remove slots in order to start downloading then the total raises above my limit and DC++ adjusts.

46k/3slot = 12k/s
Slot1 = 12k (maxed)
Slot2 = 5k
Slot3 = 12k(maxed)
----
29k


As for you Swedish people, I don’t care about you, just don’t bother the developers. Stay in your own hubs and set up a bot to kick anything but B:* and "unfamiliar" IP's like you have been doing anyway.

I just want to share.

~ I’m the op [email protected] (Upload: 197.23 GB, Download: 35.53 GB)

Locked