Upload speed limiting patch...

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

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
jonoh
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-09-13 21:36
Contact:

Upload speed limiting patch...

Post by jonoh » 2003-09-13 21:41

Loved the upload speed limiting patch on DC++ 0.18 cause it meant our whole flat could still use the internet like it would be if we weren't leeching hardcore. However, with the newer verisons of DC++ there seems to be no speed limiting patches around and you need to have the newer software to connect to some of the hubs. I have spent a couple of hours looking around for a solution but can't find anything. Can anyone help?? Can something be added into the code like it could for version 0.18??

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2003-09-13 23:43

You can ry to download a mod like DC++k, it supports upload speed limiting.

Gasman1015
Posts: 184
Joined: 2003-05-26 11:29
Location: UK

Post by Gasman1015 » 2003-09-14 06:55

If you want to continue using DC++ then get Netlimiter.
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-09-14 13:59

As always the two easily available mods with upload limiting are: DC++k or BCDC.

Limiting inside DC++ gives much nicer results than than limiting DC++'s file transfer usage through an external program.

jonoh
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-09-13 21:36
Contact:

Post by jonoh » 2003-09-14 19:56

thanks guys...have used the DC++k version...very cool - there is lots of cool stuff in the options. Once again thanks for your help :wink:

Roadblock
Posts: 5
Joined: 2003-09-19 17:49
Location: Queensland Australia

Post by Roadblock » 2003-09-19 17:54

Hi

If everybody used upload speed limiters the entire DC network would grind to a holt or should l say a trickle !

Regards rod

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2003-09-20 00:41

Roadblock, it does infact exist some reason for upload límiting. For example on an ADSL line there downloads fmore or less die sometimes then uploads goes to fast.

Roadblock
Posts: 5
Joined: 2003-09-19 17:49
Location: Queensland Australia

re

Post by Roadblock » 2003-09-20 00:50

Yes mate , l understand what you are saying , but people will put the brakes on hard , thinking that its going to give them more dl speed the harder the brakes are on , this will result in a dog slow system over all ,
not that its super fast now , but some speed is still there on some connections , but these tools will in time stop that , maybe , maybe not , l just think they are to easy to abuse , after all DC is about sharing and not just one way traffic .


Rod

TheParanoidOne
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1420
Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37

Re: re

Post by TheParanoidOne » 2003-09-20 06:30

Roadblock wrote:l just think they are to easy to abuse
Hence the reason why arne will not include this feature in the DC++ client.
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.

DC++ Guide | Words

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

Re: re

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-09-22 11:06

TheParanoidOne wrote:
Roadblock wrote:l just think they are to easy to abuse
Hence the reason why arne will not include this feature in the DC++ client.
And why BCDC and DC++k are so popular.

Face it, limiting uploads is about the least destructive behavior you can enage in in the DC protocol. There are many other ways to abuse the system. Search for the "Ratings System" threads for ideas on how that might be fixed.

cyberal
Posts: 360
Joined: 2003-05-16 05:42

Re: re

Post by cyberal » 2003-09-24 05:41

Roadblock wrote:but people will put the brakes on hard , thinking that its going to give them more dl speed the harder the brakes are on
This is the biggest problem IMO! ppl that don't know how to use the UL limiting correctly. It's not a question of "abusing" or trying to "cheat", they simply don't know better.

A automatic UL limiting system should be implemented, some feature that cuts down the uploads a few kB and fixes the ADSL problem!

There are so many experienced developers working in DC++, surely you must be able to work out some solution to prioritize the acks. *wink wink*
http://whyrar.omfg.se - Guide to RAR and DC behaviour!
http://bodstrom.omfg.se - Bodströmsamhället, Länksamling om hoten mot vår personliga integritet

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

Re: re

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-09-25 13:12

cyberal wrote:There are so many experienced developers working in DC++, surely you must be able to work out some solution to prioritize the acks. *wink wink*
Actually, I'm fairly certain it is out of our hands. The system I have coded IS the current upload throttling code. It works well for intelligent users. If users cannot be bothered to understand it properly (or read the units in which they're throttling) it's not my problem. I am not going to go wasting my time just to have some clever idiot come along and show me yet another way the stupid can defeat my overly elaborate code...

InnerCity
Posts: 105
Joined: 2003-05-17 00:35

Post by InnerCity » 2003-09-29 07:42

i remember a post where somebody said that would be a good idea to implement a feature to limit a % of de upload capacity, for example only 80% or no less than 80% reduction, could this be posible? maybe would be the end of this eternal discussion
Hi hi hoo

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2003-09-30 00:05

did you actually read the rest of that post?, how are you meant to know what 100% of the capasity is (dont answer, do a search and read)

Snoozer
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-09-30 07:52
Location: Denmark

A discussion repeated over and over again

Post by Snoozer » 2003-09-30 09:07

This discussion about possible upload limiting has been going on for years!

I was once moderator at the official eDonkey2000 forum (and Overnet at it's early start, plus the official Danish eD forum), and there we came to the conclusion that some up-load limiting would be benificial for most users, and we just had to live with the foolish leechers, whom would just use a modded version anyway.

The solution implemented by Overnet, eDonkey2000, eMule and others are infact working: Up to a 10Kb/s ´the d/l speed is limited, but >=10K it's not.
- The values has been choosen to let all the users with +256/128kbps xDSL and cable connections use the network, and still force them to share at least some of the files.


I've been using DC++ for about a year, only connecting to a private hub, and as long as I can't limit the u/l I won't expand my use of the network.
- The reason for this is I am using another filesharing program (eMule), and I want to be sure I have enough bandwith free for video-chat, gaming, voice-chat, my ftp-server and http-server.
Futhermore I do know several others who just won't use DC++, because they don't want to be bothered by having to shut it down, whenever they need the bandwith for something else.

Thus the discussion should be about what kind of users is wanted, and not wether or not a u/l limit option will be misused by leechers.


PS. For my use a thirdparty controlling app. would be perfect, for controlling the bandwith-usage dynamic, based on my personal priorities :-)

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Re: A discussion repeated over and over again

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2003-09-30 10:01

Snoozer wrote:I've been using DC++ for about a year, only connecting to a private hub, and as long as I can't limit the u/l I won't expand my use of the network.
Why not download netlimiter? With it you can limit uploads and dowloads for any specific program.

Let_Me_Be
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-10-03 04:06

Automatic speed limiting

Post by Let_Me_Be » 2003-10-03 04:12

The best way to do speed limits is to make automatic speed limiting which will balance upload and download to approx. same speed.

It will be hard to code, because it must have some inteligence, so it will not waste the bandwidth. The only thing the user will set will be the maximum combined speed.

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Re: Automatic speed limiting

Post by Twink » 2003-10-03 04:48

Let_Me_Be wrote:The best way to do speed limits is to make automatic speed limiting which will balance upload and download to approx. same speed.

It will be hard to code, because it must have some inteligence, so it will not waste the bandwidth. The only thing the user will set will be the maximum combined speed.
There are alot of 512/128k and 1MB/128k so you can't really balance the two on all connections.

cyberal
Posts: 360
Joined: 2003-05-16 05:42

Post by cyberal » 2003-10-03 05:02

The starter of this thread need bandwidth limiting to make sure all users of his connection has some bandwidth, for this I think netlimiter is the best (althought it seems some what buggy, sometimes corrupting data).

The other reason to have UL limiting, to solve the problems with the Asymetric DSL connections would not exist if we could prioritize ack packets. I belive the linux app WonderShaper does just that, is there something like it for win?
http://whyrar.omfg.se - Guide to RAR and DC behaviour!
http://bodstrom.omfg.se - Bodströmsamhället, Länksamling om hoten mot vår personliga integritet

Snoozer
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-09-30 07:52
Location: Denmark

Post by Snoozer » 2003-10-03 16:43

cyberal wrote:The starter of this thread need bandwidth limiting to make sure all users of his connection has some bandwidth, for this I think netlimiter is the best (althought it seems some what buggy, sometimes corrupting data).
I've now tried out Netlimiter for a couple of days now, and to my experience it is more like constantly producing corupted data, both for up and downstream transfer :-(
cyberal wrote:The other reason to have UL limiting, to solve the problems with the Asymetric DSL connections would not exist if we could prioritize ack packets. I belive the linux app WonderShaper does just that, is there something like it for win?
No, and I don't even think MS believes it might be a problem, so this kindda control/prioriticing feature isn't implemented in any of their workstation products (dunno about the specialized server OS).

I have taken notice to a mod solution for eMule called ZZUL, and it actually tries to make the UL dynamic.
ZZ UploadSpeedSense: Automatically finds the best upload speed for your connection!ZZUL now works right out of the box, without need for configuration of upload speed. Just set the upload speed limit to 0 (unlimited) in prefs and then relax. If you use other programs that wants bandwidth, ZZ UploadSpeedSense will automatically lower the upload limit for eMule while the other transfer is going on. When the transfer is done, ZZ UploadSpeedSense raises the upload limit back to normal speed. ZZ UploadSpeedSense will not work for multihomed hosts. UploadSpeedSense is based on the DynUp idea, and in fact uses a few lines of code from DynUp.
If this solution can be adapted by DC++, it might be the solution for both ack packet jam, and need for using other apps, beside DC++?

daven
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-04-25 14:14

Post by daven » 2003-10-04 15:21

the fact that uploading slows downloads to a crawl may be one of the most beneficial (although unintentional) aspects of the network. think about it- most download connections are capped at 2-4 times the upload connection. If these speeds were realized, it would be impossible to download at all because everyone would be sucking data four times as fast as they were serving it.

TheNOP
Posts: 275
Joined: 2003-07-07 21:41
Location: Quebec

Post by TheNOP » 2003-10-04 19:00

daven wrote:the fact that uploading slows downloads to a crawl may be one of the most beneficial (although unintentional) aspects of the network. think about it- most download connections are capped at 2-4 times the upload connection. If these speeds were realized, it would be impossible to download at all because everyone would be sucking data four times as fast as they were serving it.

:o :?
the faster the transfer will end the faster you will have a chance to have a slot.
keep in minds, that the file you want, might be from the same one he is downloading, and not actualy dl from him.
TheNOP

Have you read the FAQ?
Or the sticky ? It might give you idea.

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

Re: A discussion repeated over and over again

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-10-06 11:12

Snoozer wrote:The solution implemented by Overnet, eDonkey2000, eMule and others are infact working: Up to a 10Kb/s ´the d/l speed is limited, but >=10K it's not.
This is the model that I initially went with when coding the upload limiting code... BCDC++ uses a similar ratio system, and I think DC++k might as well.
I've been using DC++ for about a year, only connecting to a private hub, and as long as I can't limit the u/l I won't expand my use of the network.
You can limit speeds on clients using the DC++ source base, and you've been able to for a year or so (as far back as my usage of the program extends).
Thus the discussion should be about what kind of users is wanted, and not wether or not a u/l limit option will be misused by leechers.
Or... informing users that they already have several choices (all using the same code) for limiting uploads, since Arne - the DC++ head honcho - has made it pretty clear that upload/download limiting is not going into DC++ any time soon.
PS. For my use a thirdparty controlling app. would be perfect, for controlling the bandwith-usage dynamic, based on my personal priorities :-)
What about the AMUC feature in one of the eMule mods? It wasn't clearly documented when I tried to investigate it, but if I could get more information on it, I might amend my upload limiting patches/

gnudiff
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-10-16 03:12

Post by gnudiff » 2003-10-16 03:22

Case in point.

I have a line with approximately 300KB/s bandwidth.

I am currently running 1 download at approx 70KB/s, and there is a couple uploads at around 5-10KB/s each.

Now, somebody connects to me and starts to download with 200KB/sec, and I watch his speed growing!

Soon enough he is d/loading at 280KB/s and the rest of uploads and downloads have slowed down to around 2KB/s each.

That does not sound very balanced to me. If I disconnect the fast uploader, I can see the rest of my U/Ds growing back to their old values.

I would say, that the mechanism for calculating allowed speeds should take into account the number of U/Ds going on and make it so that the total speed of uploads is not taking the bandwidth from downloads, IF it is already faster than downloads. And the other way round.

Not sure if it is possible to implement , but perhaps some analysis of speeds might take place -- if we give this U or D more bandwidth, do others drop in speed?

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-10-17 11:21

gnudiff wrote:Case in point.
Did you try BCDC or DC++k's upload limiting, with downloads limited to 300kbyte/s? It should work out as you envision.

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

NetLimiter does work...

Post by Argonne » 2003-10-28 15:07

Well I have been using the NetLimiter (version 1.22 now) and have had no problems with it. I believe that the earliest beta versions have had some problems with corruption but none any longer. I actually liked it so much I bought it (I also sent some money to Arne via PayPal...). There are of course million other reasons why packets could suddenly be getting corrupted - one of them being the firewall.

I suppose that the topic of uplimiting has been debated to death. I use netlimiter because it is undetectable. Many hubs ban uplimiting versions of the DC++ on sight. I suppose it is a good thing. I use the netlimiter to turn a university department 10 Mbit LAN connection into a 1500/500 DSL connection and also advertice it as a DSL connection (I don't want to clog up the network too much). Of course the fact that there is so much spare capacity in the network could help packet integrity - I am no expert on that.

The only problems that I have had are related to the so called 100% CPU problem. Every so often one download some how jams and DC++ uses 99% of my 2.8GHz pentium 4 processor. All network traffic also stops immediately (upload/download). The problem goes away when the offending download is terminated (for some reason it is always a download - and a pretty speedy one at that) or terminates itself. So this could have something to do with netlimiter or it is some obscure bug in the program itself. Since other people have been complaining about it as well I suppose it could be a bug in the program. It happens pretty rarely so I am not really complaining. I suspect that maybe there is a problem in the connectíon and the program is constantly reguesting a re-do of the download and gets jammed - don't know. This however does not cause a corrupted file.

By the way I am using Win XP with all updates and a 3Com 100 Mbit network card. I have 1 Gb of memory.

joakim_tosteberg
Forum Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
Location: Sweden, Linkoping

Post by joakim_tosteberg » 2003-10-29 00:23

Which version of dc++ ar you using, if you not are using the latest 0.301 try yo upgrade to it and see if it helps.

alternatereality
Posts: 3
Joined: 2003-11-15 16:35

Post by alternatereality » 2003-11-15 16:56

I think this is a serious issue that needs attention, quite frankly. Consider, I get about 15K in upload with my cable connection. As I am sharing nearly 50GB (and growing every day), my slots are constantly full and my upload bandwidth pegged.

The problem, of course, is that the rest of my Internet connection is useless. Requests for web pages take 20-30 seconds to go through. SSH connections are useless - it's 5 to 10 seconds to get a character through. Hell, I can't even keep up in DC chat because it takes so long to get data out.

The end result is I don't share unless I'm downloading. When my downloads complete I close the client. If I could cap uploads @ 10K collectively, leaving 5K available for my personal use, I'd leave DC++ open 24/7 and more people would be able to download from me. But I won't make my $70/month Internet connection useless.

Netlimiter sounds great, but it doesn't solve the problem of the DC chat being bogged down, not to mention it's $30 and from what I hear, it's a bit buggy. I'd rather donate the $30 to the DC++ developers to get solid upload limiting built in. As was already stated, using a hacked client will get you banned from most hubs, so that's out.

I propose the following:

1. Allow users to set any limit on uploads and downloads. Don't tie one to the other, or otherwise try to come up with some scheme to force people to share. You can't do that. If someone doesn't want to play fair, they'll find an easy way around your limits. Meanwhile the rest of us have to suffer with restrictions that may not apply to our situation. Why cap my downloads just because I choose to cap my uploads? I've got plenty of downstream bandwidth. It's just the upstream I'm short on.

2. Leave the default installation settings as "unlimited" in both directions (all bandwidth limiting turned off). That way people who don't know or don't care will automatically play fair.

3. Here's how you solve the fairness problem: Include a simple function that will allow anyone (ops, bots, dc hubs, other users) to obtain your current upload speed settings. You can build it right into whatever function tells them how many slots a user has open. Then hubs can place restrictions on people ("10KB minimum upload") like they currently do with hub/slot & sharing ratios. Then if I log into a hub with my uploads capped at 1KB, they can kick me right back off (as they should).

Essentially, my argument is: Put bandwidth limiting in place and make the settings available to others. Let the hub owners decide what is fair, rather than trying to build some elaborate "fairness" mechanism into DC++.
-AR

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-11-15 17:35

alternatereality wrote:The end result is I don't share unless I'm downloading. When my downloads complete I close the client.
Ever since I started using DC++ a year ago at 0.181, there have been limiting solutions. Alyandon's was the first I used, then I adopted the code from DC++k. BCDC and DC++k both have limiting features... Please, use a client with limiting, it will not be added to DC++ proper
1. Allow users to set any limit on uploads and downloads. Don't tie one to the other, or otherwise try to come up with some scheme to force people to share. You can't do that. If someone doesn't want to play fair, they'll find an easy way around your limits.
Indeed, this is the most popular way to handle the situation - linking upload and download limits. And people will potentially find a way around them, if they have access to a compiler and some knowlege about C++.
3. Here's how you solve the fairness problem: Include a simple function that will allow anyone (ops, bots, dc hubs, other users) to obtain your current upload speed settings.
I don't understand how this jives with your "they will find a way around your protection scheme" statement above.

You cannot convince me, I'm in favor of users limiting however they want, and eventually using a ratings system to reward people who upload a lot. However, your argument seems to have a pretty big hole in it. :-/

alternatereality
Posts: 3
Joined: 2003-11-15 16:35

Post by alternatereality » 2003-11-16 00:41

Please, use a client with limiting
Would love to, but don't want to get banned from my favorite hubs for running a "hacked client". Are BCDC or DC++k generally considered to be 'hacked clients" in the DC community, or are they respected?
I don't understand how this jives with your "they will find a way around your protection scheme" statement above.
Simple, it moves the decision from the client to the server. If you force speed sharing ratios within the client, people will use another means to limit their bandwidth. And I'm not thinking rewriting the code - they'll just tell DC to not limit anything, and use Netlimiter, etc, to do what they want. End result, the people who want to "cheat" still do, and you just annoy those of us who will use speed limiting properly.

Instead, let the users do whatever they want, and the hub operators can decide what is acceptable on their server. No, providing a query of your settings to the hubs isn't foolproof, but it helps. The slot reporting seems to work well, so there's no reason this can't.

I like your idea of a ratings system, though I don't think it works within the client. Individual hubs should store the data, otherwise, it is trivial to cheat the system. Yes, this means you would have different ratings on different hubs, but it would keep people from artificially inflating their ratings. Small price to pay for the security of knowing the data is (probably) valid.
(Edit: fixed quote tag - GargoyleMT)
-AR

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

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-11-16 10:40

alternatereality wrote:Would love to, but don't want to get banned from my favorite hubs for running a "hacked client". Are BCDC or DC++k generally considered to be 'hacked clients" in the DC community, or are they respected?
Well, anything other than DC++ itself is probably considered hacked by some people. BCDC has emulation modes precisely for this.
No, providing a query of your settings to the hubs isn't foolproof, but it helps. The slot reporting seems to work well, so there's no reason this can't.
When limiting clients want to say that they're limiting, they report it with a B: L: or U: addition to their ++ tag. I think this is pretty much what you're asking for... (Perhaps it's not hidden deeply enough, but it is a basic sanity check and reporting facility.)
I like your idea of a ratings system, though I don't think it works within the client. Individual hubs should store the data, otherwise, it is trivial to cheat the system. Yes, this means you would have different ratings on different hubs, but it would keep people from artificially inflating their ratings. Small price to pay for the security of knowing the data is (probably) valid.
Well, the flip side is: do you want the hub to know about each transfer? A karma system in the client works well for eMule, though it might not be as accurate/nice as one inside a DC++ client - since there are typically more and shorter transfers in eMule than in DC++ (since they're servince file fragment, instead of the whole file, or a directory of files). I'll have to more properly revisit the ratings system threads later, but neither sarf nor volkris seem to be active in the forum right now. ;)

telos
Posts: 5
Joined: 2004-01-20 14:26

Post by telos » 2004-01-20 14:43

This topic is getting old and nothing seems to ever push it in either direction. But i'm going to put in my 2 cents because i can.

The biggest argument for integrating a speed limiter is that any one who wants to do it will just install netlimiter. If DC++ were to integrate it and put restrictions on it such as the ones listed above (displaying limit in tag and having servers set their requirements) it would be much "fairer" to it's users.

I personally have stopped contributing to the public hubs and now only go to a few private ones that I either host (and there fore don't kick for BCDC++ and it's limiter) or the host themselves doesn't care about speed limiters.

The only time I find it usefull to place a cap on my uploads is when i want to go play a game. I personally have a 32KB upload and cap it to 20KB when i want to go play a game or need the connection for something else. People give me the arguement that i should just close the client all togather. Why? if i leave it going at a slightly slower speed the file will still get to you sooner then it would if i were to take all of my bandwidth away by leaving.

Being able to throttle has alowed me to be on 3 private hubs who understand the values of throtteling 24/7 for the last 4 months. Uploading over 500GB.

If some one wants to be a leech they are going to be a leech there is no stopping that. The only thing you have done by making upload throtteling a "hacked" feature is make them work a little harder and force honest users who cap for a legitimate reason to hide off in the private hubs where they arn't shunned for trying to contribute 24/7.

alternatereality
Posts: 3
Joined: 2003-11-15 16:35

Post by alternatereality » 2004-01-20 17:18

The only thing you have done by making upload throtteling a "hacked" feature is make them work a little harder and force honest users who cap for a legitimate reason to hide off in the private hubs where they arn't shunned for trying to contribute 24/7.
Thank you. My point exactly.

I switched to BCDC. I've since been banned from a major sci-fi hub because the powers that be have their heads too far up their asses to understand this simple equation: Let me set a reasonable limit and I'll share 24/7. Otherwise, I'm downloading what I need and turning the client off immediately afterward, everyone else who wants my files be damned. Sharing over 50G of high quality sci-fi and a polite email to the hub's owner did nothing to change the situation: I'm obviously a no good stinking leech.

So screw 'em. I'll keep using BCDC because it's the only way I can share and get any reasonable use out of my Internet connection at the same time. The idiots who can't understand this and insist on banning people like me will just miss out on accessing the half terabyte array I'm filling up.
-AR

telos
Posts: 5
Joined: 2004-01-20 14:26

Post by telos » 2004-01-20 21:03

don't feel bad about having no leverage with 50GB. I have almost 700GB and well on my way to filling over 1.4TB and i still have no leverage in the hubs i have attempted to reason with.

deadude32
Posts: 4
Joined: 2004-02-02 01:34
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Post by deadude32 » 2004-02-02 02:03

You definatally need to be able to limit sharing while trying to do stuff. But if you put it as a simple feature in the setting dialogue people wil abuse it, look at how slow kazaa is.

another thing is funny how slow the <20GB limit hubs run vs. the >80 limit hubs.

Twink
Posts: 436
Joined: 2003-03-31 23:31
Location: New Zealand

Post by Twink » 2004-02-02 23:46

deadude32 wrote:You definatally need to be able to limit sharing while trying to do stuff. But if you put it as a simple feature in the setting dialogue people wil abuse it, look at how slow kazaa is.

another thing is funny how slow the <20GB limit hubs run vs. the >80 limit hubs.
and you dont supose that could be due to the >80 limit people having better connections?

Locked