Upload Speed Limiting

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

Moderator: Moderators

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

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

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-16 09:40

Sapporo wrote:Personally, I don't think the minimums should be regulated on the client side. Especially considering someone can just remove that limit and recompile the client in a few seconds. This should be something that the hubs should regulate themselves (via kicking).


There's no alternative to regulating the speed at the client. Even if you don't trust the client to make its own upload limit, and the hub decides instead, it still gets passed to the client, who can happily lie about meeting it. ("Oh, I have more uploads going, that's why you're not getting the whole foo kbps speed off me.") Never trust the client is a well known mantra.

harry_x wrote:because is much clearer and info about the amount of crapping could be in ++ tags


It's too easy to lie about this. My mod does have a U and D in the ++ tag, so hub software could filter against it, but it's trivial to remove, and nothing else gives outward evidence that the client is throttling. And that means that some of the more strict hub admins might just think it's a better idea to ban all DC++ clients than put up with an upload modified client that doesn't report that it is.

harry_x wrote:CZDC++


Unfortunately, they use Alyandon's upload throttling patch and BlackClaw's download throttling patch, which are both pretty inaccurate. (And yes, I have written better :)) CZDC++ has some other nice features, it'a pitty that they haven't given Arne patches for some of them. But that's the case with BCDC++ and oDC++ too.

Sarf, the more I read, the more I'm convinced that you and Volkris are right!

harry_x
Posts: 3
Joined: 2003-02-16 09:09

Post by harry_x » 2003-02-16 11:22

GargoyleMT wrote:It's too easy to lie about this. My mod does have a U and D in the ++ tag, so hub software could filter against it, but it's trivial to remove, and nothing else gives outward evidence that the client is throttling. And that means that some of the more strict hub admins might just think it's a better idea to ban all DC++ clients than put up with an upload modified client that doesn't report that it is.

Yes it is trivial to remove - but all of this is trivial - it's easy to fake ++ tags, it's easy to make client always report no free slots,it's easy to fake share... As long as DC++ is open source, it's trivial to remove all such things from ti - that is - you could do nothing about it (except close DC++ sources, but that won't help so much - security by obscurity isn't the right way imo)

GargoyleMT wrote:Unfortunately, they use Alyandon's upload throttling patch and BlackClaw's download throttling patch, which are both pretty inaccurate. (And yes, I have written better :)) CZDC++ has some other nice features, it'a pitty that they haven't given Arne patches for some of them. But that's the case with BCDC++ and oDC++ too.

Sarf, the more I read, the more I'm convinced that you and Volkris are right!

Truely said, I don't know how accurate are they, because I don't use them, i have QoS and that works fine for me:)

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-16 16:01

harry_x wrote:As long as DC++ is open source, it's trivial to remove all such things from ti - that is - you could do nothing about it (except close DC++ sources, but that won't help so much - security by obscurity isn't the right way imo)


If open source has nothing to do with it (it doesn't, but you admit this in the next line), then why do you mention it? People seem to be very mislead into thinking this very wrong thing.

Anyway, the only solution is a very serious redesign of the basic workings of the network. And note that I said serious, not invasive or difficult. Very small modifications (like the ratings system) could have large impacts on the workings of DC.

lemmons
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-20 00:36

Post by lemmons » 2003-02-20 00:56

What if an automatic upload limiter were put in. One that couldn't be changed at least not through the settings(obviously anyone can change open code), and would perhaps limit a certain percent of ones upload bandwidth for them to use for downloads and internet surfing and such. I know for me, if I am uploading files faster than 15 KB a second, it totaly cripples my downloads, so if I were to just have perhps just 5 KB or like 25% of my upload bandwidth for myself, it would totaly be awsome for me. I dunno if its possable or what not, but I think its a good idea, and would help all us DSL'rs out there who suffer sometimes if even one person starts uploading from us.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-20 20:47

lemmons wrote:What if an automatic upload limiter were put in. One that couldn't be changed at least not through the settings(obviously anyone can change open code), and would perhaps limit a certain percent of ones upload bandwidth for them to use for downloads and internet surfing and such. I know for me, if I am uploading files faster than 15 KB a second, it totaly cripples my downloads, so if I were to just have perhps just 5 KB or like 25% of my upload bandwidth for myself, it would totaly be awsome for me. I dunno if its possable or what not, but I think its a good idea, and would help all us DSL'rs out there who suffer sometimes if even one person starts uploading from us.


If it was in the source, the people who were going to abuse it would. So basically, you'd penalize those using it legitmately and those too stupid to modify it themselves (or find someone who has).

Figuring out the speeds of someone's connection is a non-trivial task...

Da8add1e
Posts: 30
Joined: 2003-02-04 13:17
Location: Saddams Bunker :)

Post by Da8add1e » 2003-02-23 05:24

why not use the same method eMule uses and just take 25% off both Upload and Download leaving some bandwidth free for surfing the net/checking email etc, as for how to secure it, theres lots of ways but all (that i can think of) would only work with a new Hub-soft or perhaps NM-Hub with a Script as it would need an extension to the protocol for version authentication
Need NOT Greed (don't abuse poor countries)
Pay the Poor (increase minimum wage)
Tax the Rich (100% SuperTax rate)
(Do ya think thats maybe a little left-wing?)

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

Post by sarf » 2003-02-23 08:49

Da8add1e wrote:why not use the same method eMule uses and just take 25% off both Upload and Download leaving some bandwidth free for surfing the net/checking email etc, as for how to secure it, theres lots of ways but all (that i can think of) would only work with a new Hub-soft or perhaps NM-Hub with a Script as it would need an extension to the protocol for version authentication

Why shoud I be penalized if I want to share 150 kb/s and not a single byte more just because I am a top site for the "ûberlegal warez corporation" or whatever?

The thing is, the only person that knows how much bandwidth you want dedicated to DC++/FTP/whatever is you.

Let me control my own computer, or at least, don't force me to use third-party tools to control applications that think they know best.

Sarf
---
Welcome to the Federal Bureau for Reducing Bureaucracy!

AlleyKat
Posts: 40
Joined: 2003-01-31 15:37
Location: Denmark

Post by AlleyKat » 2003-02-23 12:28

I go with Da8add1e's concept - cap it 25% (or less, see discussion a few miles up) both ways. And for you, Serf, I'm SURE Arne would include a setting in Advanced reading "Throttle to full bandwidth" or similar (why does the words "Hog my line" keep popping up in my mind, I wonder).
I'm not sure it would eliminate the need for the "Small send buffer" or the buffer size, but I do wonder...

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-23 15:37

AlleyKat wrote:I go with Da8add1e's concept - cap it 25% (or less, see discussion a few miles up) both ways. And for you, Serf, I'm SURE Arne would include a setting in Advanced reading "Throttle to full bandwidth" or similar (why does the words "Hog my line" keep popping up in my mind, I wonder).


Cap it to 25% of capacity both ways? So I'd be uploading at 4kbps and potentially downloading at 24kbps? How does it know? What if I'm running a web server that gets constant hits, or another p2p application, or sending a huge file attachment? The only one who should be in charge of bandwidth usage is the user. Now, someone else's limit may seem unreasonable to me, and that's a problem. There's no solution yet, but all these BS "solutions" are technically or socially unfeasible.

Oh, and eMule doesn't work that way at all. It does have a box for "connection size" in upload and download kilobytes per second, as well as a "current cap" box. It doesn't auto-detect, and although it does have a handy menu to set the caps to a certain percentage of your typed in capacity (which is not publicized anywhere and can be wrong), it does so in 20% increments. I'm not sure where the 25% comes from.

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

Post by NoFiX » 2003-02-26 09:04

What's capping uploads and the *general* DC++ community have in common? They're both lame! har har har!

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

Post by Menchi » 2003-02-26 12:15

I find it strange that those opposed to bandwidth management tend to be troll's.

If you don't like it then give us a thoughtful reason why (be sure to read the thread, even if its very long).

here's a good reason why it should be included (shameless plug)
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... .php?t=840

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

Post by NoFiX » 2003-02-26 15:59

1. Connect to DC.
2. Attempt to download file list from satan33345.
3. Oh, look, he's got 30 free slots, out of 32 even!!
4. Cool, let's download this ultra-rare movie he's got!
5. Oh wow, look at that download burn at 20.3 kB/s!
6. 3 seconds later! Oh wow, imagine that! down to 2.2kB/s!!! SWEET!
7. Oh fun, let's remove him from the que and make sure the ops know he is bandwidth capping.
8. 1 day later, Oh look, he's managed to fool them ops. Still has 30 free slots! Can't imagine why no one is using up those slots!!

This is an every-day observation.

Yes, there are a majority of people that have no options. They get a consistent 5kB/s with their telemodem. I totally understand that and most others do too. What I don't understand how someone would want to cap their bandwidth, then have the balls to bitch about other peoples upstream speeds....

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

Post by Menchi » 2003-02-26 19:58

That isn’t a problem caused by capping.

Capping doesn’t start out at 20k/sec and then go down. In fact I find that most people who cap are doing something else, because they don’t have to micro manage their connection. I am fairly sure you were "pushed out" by another download. I've seen it happen many times on different connections (personally and from friends). user1 connects and starts happily downloading, user2 who is closer to satan33345 connects and takes up all the bandwidth.

This is one reason why I don’t like Alyandon's cop&paste from the download limiter code. It's a quick hack that groups everything together like nomal DC++. I prefer using the one from http://dc-plus-plus.netfirms.com, or even better, DCGUI's implementation. Both allocate bandwidth to each slot, starting at L:/S: and don’t let it go above that, leaving room for the rest. The nice thing about DCGUI is that it will allocate more bandwidth to the other slots when a slot uses less than 75% of its allocation.

If you get a slot from me you are going to get a solid 10k/sec

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

Post by NoFiX » 2003-02-28 16:54

That would be a biased opinion, I'm guessing.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-28 23:51

NoFiX wrote:That would be a biased opinion, I'm guessing.


That would be a pretty odd guess... an opinion was never expressed.

Rodga
Posts: 12
Joined: 2003-02-24 19:16
Location: Norway

Why not UL-limit?

Post by Rodga » 2003-03-05 18:08

I have ADSL, and I upload to other users, it always fuxx up my upload-bandwidth, and often it is almost impossible to surf on the net (takes lots of time).

I have only 16 KBps upload, and would like to set it at most 13 KBps.

What is so wrong with upload limits like so many other programs have!?

rtfmoz
Posts: 25
Joined: 2003-01-08 02:14

REal simple solution

Post by rtfmoz » 2003-03-05 18:52

Here is a REAL simple solution...

Instead of limiting allow the option to turn on bandwidth sharing. DC checks before sending each packet; if traffic is outgoing already then it implements a backoff algorithim to slow its sending until the traffic is clear again.

rtfmoz

Sapporo
Posts: 36
Joined: 2003-02-09 23:10
Location: AZ, USA

Post by Sapporo » 2003-03-05 21:07

rtfmoz wrote:Instead of limiting allow the option to turn on bandwidth sharing. DC checks before sending each packet; if traffic is outgoing already then it implements a backoff algorithim to slow its sending until the traffic is clear again.


That would be impossible. The bandwidth bottlenecks that occur are external to the PC that DC++ is running on. Thus no way to check what the current traffic rate is and take action based on that.

rtfmoz
Posts: 25
Joined: 2003-01-08 02:14

Post by rtfmoz » 2003-03-06 03:15

Well it depends on your setup then doesnt it? If your PC is the gateway then it will work fine! I am sure that an snmp GET to a gateway device would be trivial to implement. All you want is the byte value of traffic on the external interface. Since the MIBs are standardised it should not be too hard to identify the external link and then get the data values. I mean you could have a setup pane in DC which queies the interfaces on the gateway and asks you which one is the external interface. Then its easy after that.

If you dont have SNMP then maybe some HTML magic will do the same thing by reading the web management interface of the gateway. Once you get the result then its really not that hard to retrieve the byte totals. To keep it simple to program, get the user to specify the username, password and URL of the managment page which has the interface stats. Then get them to specify a pattern to match so you know what on the page is the actual byte count. That way you dont have to program for each gateway device. The user sets all that up.

Becasue you are polling an external device it becomes impossible to check before each packet so maybe every 10 seconds it will poll the interface and check it against a count of the data it is sending. If their is other traffic then it can figure out what is fair and slows the sending speed to suit.

rtfmoz

Marvin
Posts: 147
Joined: 2003-03-06 06:56
Location: France
Contact:

Post by Marvin » 2003-03-06 09:12

What about a symetric BWL ? I will be quite contented with 12 or 13kB/s download if it's the price to pay to be able to use my computed while sharing. My UL is low, I can't do anything to change this, but I would like to use it wisely. No preset number can meet my needs, but if the limit I freely choose applies to my DL, it is not abusable (unless someone tampers the sources).

As cheaters already have all the tools they need, I can't understand why Arne is so shy about BWL :? .

Sapporo
Posts: 36
Joined: 2003-02-09 23:10
Location: AZ, USA

Post by Sapporo » 2003-03-06 11:57

That's exactly my point rtfmoz. You can't implement this inside of DC++ without having to query an external device/interface. This external device/interface could come in an infinite number of combinations and present just as many variable differences. Thus, very difficult to implement if not impossible.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-03-06 11:58

Sapporo wrote:That's exactly my point rtfmoz. You can't implement this inside of DC++ without having to query an external device/interface. This external device/interface could come in an infinite number of combinations and present just as many variable differences. Thus, very difficult to implement if not impossible.


A nice way to say this is: "patches welcome"

:wink:

Yffffonz
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-26 14:22
Location: NY

Post by Yffffonz » 2003-03-10 13:51

I'm new to the forum ..but just wondering if in the topic of bandwidth limiting it has been discussed the problems cable modem users are facing regarding the fair use policy of many of the cable ISPs. Namely a high sustained use of upload bandwidth is in direct viloation of the usage policy.

I have had to limit the types of files that can be shared...or my service will be terminated.

Limiting would allow many to share files they would not normally be able to while keeping them at a "safe" bandwidth usage.

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

Pycckuu
Posts: 11
Joined: 2003-01-24 15:05

Post by Pycckuu » 2003-03-13 10:57

Let`s make it like in e-mule/e-donkey
minimum upload limit 10KB/sec - 20Kb/sec download
if 100KB/sec upload then - 200kb/sec upload
Thanks

[RONIN]son_of_minya
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-03-13 12:54
Location: Louisville, KY -- home of InsightBB monopoly, 128kbps upload

Post by [RONIN]son_of_minya » 2003-03-13 13:11

In another thread, GargoyleMT wrote:

If you treat everyone who wants upload caps as a criminal, then that's how they'll behave.


People like ivulfusbar want this thread to disappear, and troll rather than attempt a rational explanation about why bandwidth limiting is wrong.

Don't remember who wrote this, but it is balls-on deadly accurate:

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.


For months now, I've been privately grumbling about the Swedes. Without fail, I am banned from every Swedish hub I ever log onto. The only explanation I can come up with is that Swedes are racists. They actually ban anyone who is not Swedish, and they'll ban you for little/no reason if they just can't be sure. I thought they were supposed to be socialists, and these people act like this.

Paradox:

600/128 Cable

This connection doesn't suffer from any download problems


This is not accurate whatsoever, as many people have written here. I am on 128kbps upload, and it cripples my download speed. I am talking 2-3 kB/s maximum.

There was an extremely old version of dc++k that worked for me. All other modified clients I've tested either crash constantly or or do not implement working bandwidth limiting.

"Bandwidth limiting" is not even the right term. I do not want to lower my upload speed at all. I am not going to limit anyone's bandwidth. I just want to prevent this backwards program from crashing my downloads. It is literally not functional without a limit/throttle/cap in place.

Telling me that I can do nothing to make this program work, is like telling a 12-year old girl that she has to die because kidney transplants are illegal. "Sorry, too many people would abuse it, so we can't allow kidney transplants. I know, it's bad. You're gonna die... But you are not Swedish, so we don't give a f*ck. Only lamers have bad kidneys anyway, l00zer."

maniak wrote:

You see, since we don't have a terabyte of hottest stuff to share, 1000 slots and OC-3 line, we're just random losers to them. Our troubles have no significance to them.


Going back to the first quote, the solution is clear to me. It's time to start acting like a criminal.

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

Post by sarf » 2003-03-13 17:12

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:[snip]People like ivulfusbar want this thread to disappear, and troll rather than attempt a rational explanation about why bandwidth limiting is wrong.

Bandwidth limiting is "wrong" (as are all things, all hail "the ends justify the means"!) only when it limits the greater good.
The greater good is often considered to be sharing, or more specifically, for me to get stuff from you. Whether you can get stuff from me is often irrelevant to most people. If they don't get hurt by it, they'll do it.

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:[snip quote about Swedes]For months now, I've been privately grumbling about the Swedes. Without fail, I am banned from every Swedish hub I ever log onto. The only explanation I can come up with is that Swedes are racists. They actually ban anyone who is not Swedish, and they'll ban you for little/no reason if they just can't be sure. I thought they were supposed to be socialists, and these people act like this.

Before you ask, I am a "racist" Swede. :)
Sweden is a socialist nation (welfare state and all that). We get loads of stuff for "free" (and anyone who earns money pays through the nose for it ... as in half your salary in taxes, plus taxes on the stuff you buy).
Our nice nation decided that "Internet is the Future!" and promptly subsidized city-wide networks as well as building a inter-city network of gigantic proportions (well... kinda - actually SuNET (an organisation sponsored by the state through the universities of Sweden) built our gigabit inter-city backbone).

When we connect to the 'net, and gets tremendous speeds to other Swedes, but a measly trickle of bytes (a few kilobytes per second) from other nations, most of us think "Oh well. So what if we can't get Ultra-Uber-GoreFest 2005 in a few minutes". Others start 10-megabit hubs and kick/ban anyone without a "proven" 10-megabit connection (and it's the connection to the people on the hub that counts, not your connection). Some go so far to kick anyone from any IP outside of Sweden. FYI, there are hubs that I (as a user of a small, local ISP) do not get into because my connection is not "good enough".
As to the racism... sadly, the "casual" racism is increasing, and it is not only funny looking fellas with towels on their heads that are the targets of it. Americans (and, to a certain extent, Brits) get their share of the mud thrown on them, too.
The European Union is starting to become "Fortress Europe", one of many steps that will, most probably, lead to "The Federated States of Europe".

Oh well... enough about Sweden.

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:This is not accurate whatsoever, as many people have written here. I am on 128kbps upload, and it cripples my download speed. I am talking 2-3 kB/s maximum.

Get an upload limited client, for crying out load. Sure, you have to do the searching for one all by yourself (several haven been mentioned on the boards).

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:There was an extremely old version of dc++k that worked for me. All other modified clients I've tested either crash constantly or or do not implement working bandwidth limiting.

Why thank you! It's not often I get praise for my modified version.
<shameless plug mode>
I intend to release a "DC++k uploadlimiting only" version soon. It will feature uploadlimiting only (as well as pre-0.24 DC++ emulation). Check my site every now and then.
</shameless plug mode>

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:"Bandwidth limiting" is not even the right term. I do not want to lower my upload speed at all. I am not going to limit anyone's bandwidth. I just want to prevent this backwards program from crashing my downloads. It is literally not functional without a limit/throttle/cap in place.

Correct. So why not use BCDC++ / DC++k / whatever?

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:Telling me that I can do nothing to make this program work, is like telling a 12-year old girl that she has to die because kidney transplants are illegal. "Sorry, too many people would abuse it, so we can't allow kidney transplants. I know, it's bad. You're gonna die... But you are not Swedish, so we don't give a f*ck. Only lamers have bad kidneys anyway, l00zer."

Actually, what most people should have said is "here's a knife, and an infinite number of people to train on - teach yourself to transplant a kidney and you'll live!". It's a bit mean, but if you are going to do kidney transplants for every kid that asks you'll run out of time to do the brain-transplant for the kindly old man. Or somesuch.

[RONIN]son_of_minya wrote:
maniak wrote:You see, since we don't have a terabyte of hottest stuff to share, 1000 slots and OC-3 line, we're just random losers to them. Our troubles have no significance to them.
Going back to the first quote, the solution is clear to me. It's time to start acting like a criminal.

W00t w00t! Give me a PM if you want to get cracking on the source code yourself and run into problems. The more the merrier!
Now, if we only would start using a rating server, all these problems would go away.

Sarf
---
Did you exchange... a walk-on part in the war... for a lead role in a cage?

tyront
Posts: 4
Joined: 2003-03-13 19:35

Post by tyront » 2003-03-21 13:17

I believe that the people who made dc++ should not have to worry about the furture of p2p they should only worry about the creating increasing more stable technologies.

as i have often seen the hubs have different sets of rules and most of them have often teams of people who can program better bots which will be come available to other hubs. they will always be people who take care of the rulez some are outragouly stupid but that is for the public to decide as it always works like that on dc. If a person don't like it they will leave the masses leave there is no hub.

Also i want to state that i have went though so many unstable programs that crash instantly defecting most of the time is not an option to the masses.

pandora
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-03-30 17:48

Post by pandora » 2003-03-30 17:51


Danzig
Posts: 5
Joined: 2003-02-07 10:45

Post by Danzig » 2003-04-03 05:49



Yeah, exactly :)

or Bandwidth Controller

- End of debate -

Nyo[PL]
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-04-12 09:25
Location: Poznan PL

i think there is a sollution

Post by Nyo[PL] » 2003-04-12 09:30

why not let pl limit their download per slot and add a multi-source download function ? evryone has great speeds :)

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

Re: i think there is a sollution

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-04-12 09:36

Nyo[PL] wrote:why not let [people] limit their download per slot and add a multi-source download function ? [everyone] has great speeds :)


:) Indeed, Arnetheduck isn't opposed to download bandwidth limiting (which I have created code for).

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

Re: i think there is a sollution

Post by maniak » 2003-04-14 14:13

Nyo[PL] wrote:why not let pl limit their download per slot and add a multi-source download function ? evryone has great speeds :)

(to Nyo only: a swistak siedzi i zawija...)

Sure, that would work perfectly... in theory. As a homework, please read all messages related to the topic and compile a list of people posting here, separated into those who would limit themselves to say 5Kbps and those who would whine if they were to set the limit as low as 1Mbps.

The problem is less and less related to technology as the time goes. There are mods (some even working) with limiting, people posted links to (quite expensive) programs to limit bandwidth...

The problem is mostly with some people that chose to ignore known limits in what is available to users. Not everyone gets free ethernet straight to the backbone :-(
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. (karb on /.)

Wjierd
Posts: 29
Joined: 2003-04-15 10:47

Post by Wjierd » 2003-04-15 22:19

I believe one of the main reasons people start using faker clients and slot-lockers is because of the upload issue. This is starting to become a serious problem in almost every hub as less and less people actually have legitimate shares and slots. I'm not saying implementing some kind of upload management is going to solve every problem with faking/slot-locking, but it might stop at least stop a good number of people from switching to such illegitimate practices in the first place. And, of course, as with any other type of abuse, if users abuse upload controls then I'm sure OPs could develop pretty effective ways to find and deal with such people.

Mu5icManiak
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-04-21 09:28

A Better Solution

Post by Mu5icManiak » 2003-04-21 12:54

I am in the "poor soul that has ADSL but isn’t using a bandwidth limiter" category.

I'v skimmed through this mamoth topic (someone with a bit of spare time really should make a summary or s.t); there are loads of good points but the fact remains that i'm still stuck here finding it impossible to browse while uploading.

When i want to browse or check mail i have to SHUT DOWN DC++ completely, and i'm sure many other ADSL users are forced to do the same. Basically the whole community is loosing our here; because ADSL users are only sharing for half they time they would be.

I'm getting more and more fed up of this and it's only a matter of time before I start searching for some sort of hacked client. Pity really, because I really like the latest DC++ (v0.242 has proven to be very stable for me). Alot of other ADSL users must be thinkin the same way, and this is gonna give rise to more and more limited-upload versions of DC++. These tend to be simple in nature, just blocking any uploads over the limit the user decides to implement. This is exactly the sort of client thats begging to be abused by leachers: there must be a better way to do things...

All ADSL users really need is the following:

-option to reduce BOTH upload & download by a USER SPECIFIED amount for a USER SPECIFIED amount of time in a 1:2 ratio, i.e. for every 1kb of upload we block, we have to give up 2kb of d/l.
- An easy-access [on/off] feature...accessible by right click in the sys-tray icon and via a button, NOT hidden away in the settings.

This is a simple solution which is easy to implement and leaves no room for abuse. If a leacher tries stopping uploads using this then as he blocks more and more kb/sec of uploads he will be blocking twice as much in kb/sec of downloads.

This system is great because the genuine ADSL users know that by limiting uploads by 1 or 2 kb/sec the increase performance on their downloads will be very large, but as they limit more and more kb in uploads the increase in performance will be less than the download bandwidth they have to sacrifice, so they will find some optimal limiting level.

On the other hand a leecher will be frustrated by this system because they will always loose more than they gain by decreasing the upload limit.

I would love to code this but i'm not a programmer. If you are then please try and implement this solution for the next release of DC++...ADSL users around the world will be immensely grateful. I'd stay away from the leachers' club though :lol:

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-04-21 18:30

There are already (good) upload and download capping mechanisms out there. For instance, both BCDC and DC++k have it. Both of them use ratios to keep upload limiting in check. This is not in the cards for DC++ proper.

Ratios still aren't a perfect solution. For instance, for people who sit and upload all the time at the limits of their DSL (10-20kbps) and hardly ever download don't "deserve" to have their (seldom) downloads capped at 20-40kbps, especially when they might be capable of 8x (or more) of that speed.

At some point you have to cut your losses when you compromise, but be aware that finding a true equitable solution is... hard.

Most leechers wouldn't be able to remove the protection mechanisms present in the source, but there's a whole forum full of people who can and do routinely cheat the system. And they have a programmer or two that hacks clients for them. (useful to keep in mind)

P.S. this post is incoherent in its overall message, but the bits above are all valid.

Sapporo
Posts: 36
Joined: 2003-02-09 23:10
Location: AZ, USA

Post by Sapporo » 2003-04-21 19:31

Since there are publically available alt clients out there with throttling (not including unreleased hacks of DC++) there is no point in NOT adding it to the offical DC++. IMO, At least it can be regulated if it was added to the offical DC++.

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

Post by sarf » 2003-04-22 09:49

Actually, Sapporo, there is a very good reason not to implement upload limiting (as well as fake sharing, slot locking, ignoring searches and so on) :
By having a "vanilla" client, people can say "well, the hax0red clients are bad, but at least we can trust DC++ and arnetheduck".

It prevents hub owners from totally banning DC++ (or rather, it removes a reason for them to do so).

This helps the modified clients a lot, since they need only emulate DC++ (not hard to do if they're based on the source code), and doesn't have to emulate NM DC in all its... glory.

Oh, and there is also the matter of maintaining the code - I wouldn't wish to implement lame uploadlimit things if I could putter around, creating nifty things like segmented (multiple source) downloading and be sure that they'll be used (have you noticed how similar used is to sued?) by anyone.

A bit of a rant, but there you have it. Besides, as I am one of those modifying DC++ for my own personal benefit, I think that makes me eminently qualified to ask for upload limiting to be excluded from DC++.

Let arnetheduck do what he does best - improving the core DC++ features. Let us codemonkeys out in the vast cyberjungle take care of the finetuning and extra features.

Sarf
---
Say what you mean and say it mean...

Eccles45
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-05-06 08:49
Location: Lancashire, England

Post by Eccles45 » 2003-05-06 09:45

Danzig wrote:


Yeah, exactly :)

or Bandwidth Controller

- End of debate -

Anybody an opinion as to which of these two is preferable? I need to be able to control the BW. I have an ADSL connection, with all the problems that causes. More importantly, I host my own domains, manage mail and host websites for family and friends -- B/W must be reserved for the running of the various servers.

Locked