Downloads limiter

Justen · Post by **Justen** » 2003-02-02 12:50

I know upload limiter is serious no-no, but how about download limiter? It's really a drag, that when I am going out for hours and I leave dc++ open and I am downloading from irc as well, probaply dc++ will try to take the whole bandthwildth. Also, there are times when youd wish to leave some of your dl bandthwilth free.

To go on, would it be possible to allow the user to slow downloads? The thing with upload limiters is that they are easily misused. But if the uploader asks from the downloader, could he maybe limit his dl to 20 kbs, could he limit his dl from him, I think most often he would agree. After all, he is sharing this stuff because of his own free will.. And at least I get requests to disconnect and return in hour, or dl more so the strain for one user goes down.

The idea might need some work, yet, but this is the idea. If its possible to make upload limiter, making download limiter cant be much harder, can it? For the whole dc++ as a whole or for one dl only?

I have pondered this for a while, and I have yet to come over way to misuse this option..

PS: My english is bad, forgive. Also, if thread about this is already somewhere (I tried to watch, but still..), forgive me also. And, if this kind of feature is already in dc++ and I havent noticed, please dont laugh me too much..

sarf · Post by **sarf** » 2003-02-02 14:40

Justen wrote:I know upload limiter is serious no-no, but how about download limiter? It's really a drag, that when I am going out for hours and I leave dc++ open and I am downloading from irc as well, probaply dc++ will try to take the whole bandthwildth. Also, there are times when youd wish to leave some of your dl bandthwilth free.

Yay! A great option that may get the attention of the omni-benevolent creator of DC++! This thing is so good that I will implement it immediately in my proggie... <whack, bonk, bang, boof> Done!

Justen wrote:To go on, would it be possible to allow the user to slow downloads? The thing with upload limiters is that they are easily misused. But if the uploader asks from the downloader, could he maybe limit his dl to 20 kbs, could he limit his dl from him, I think most often he would agree. After all, he is sharing this stuff because of his own free will.. And at least I get requests to disconnect and return in hour, or dl more so the strain for one user goes down.

You mean that an uploading client could ask the downloading client to use less bandwidth, but not to be able to influence its own upload bandwidth... interesting, though I don't think many people would enable a "use less download bandwidth if the uploader asks for it".

Justen wrote:The idea might need some work, yet, but this is the idea. If its possible to make upload limiter, making download limiter cant be much harder, can it? For the whole dc++ as a whole or for one dl only?

It's very easy (5-10 minutes work) to add application wide download limitng. It would take <using crystal ball scrying software v0.3beta> about 4-6 hours to code socket-based download limiting (e.g. download limiting one download), but then I add in the necessary protocol adjustments to allow clients to ask downloaders to use less bandwidth as well as adding a setting that determines what response/action the client takes.

Justen wrote:I have pondered this for a while, and I have yet to come [up with a] way to misuse this option..

Hmmmm.... well... if you code the automated download acceptance functionality poorly, you could have malicious clients asking everyone to limit their bandwidth to 1 byte/s. I'd recommend a "lowest acceptable throughput" to be, for example, half the speed you started the transfer with.

Justen wrote:PS: My english is bad, forgive. Also, if thread about this is already somewhere (I tried to watch, but still..), forgive me also. And, if this kind of feature is already in dc++ and I havent noticed, please dont laugh me too much..

Well, there is the "do not open more downloads if above X kb/s"-function, but an automated request to downloaders is, to my knowledge, not in the system.

Sarf
---
It is the wise bird who builds his nest in a tree.

Justen · Post by **Justen** » 2003-02-02 15:16

You mean that an uploading client could ask the downloading client to use less bandwidth, but not to be able to influence its own upload bandwidth... interesting, though I don't think many people would enable a "use less download bandwidth if the uploader asks for it".

I mean it like the uloader asks the dloader "Kind sir, could you please slow your dl under 15? Thanks.", and the dloader thinks this over and does this (or then again, not).

Well, there is the "do not open more downloads if above X kb/s"-function, but an automated request to downloaders is, to my knowledge, not in the system.

You might have ten downloads that take 30 kbs as a whole, or one dl that takes 50...[/quote]

AlleyKat · Post by **AlleyKat** » 2003-02-02 15:47

Nobody looks up in the sky anymore

Sure I do, when I can remember the webcam address...

Sry, couldn't help myself....

Pycckuu · Post by **Pycckuu** » 2003-02-05 05:41

Is there an upload limiter in dc++ for total upload speed?
i have limited 30KB upload speed & when i am uploading at this speed i can`t even download anything

that sux

Can you help? may be we should have a new feature in newer versions?
Thanks!

Justen · Post by **Justen** » 2003-02-05 07:15

No, there isint any kind of ul limiter. In this forum there is a poll on the subject. Personally, I think having one is not good idea (I too have ADSL, btw), because ppl would use it unnecesary.

This is why I requested the dl limiter. My ADSL can stand 25ktb of upload without any reaction on my dl speed.. after that, its not as good. At upping 50 kbs, my dl go down to 25. Because these numbers are quite high for some adsl users, I have not though about complaining. But now and then there comes some happy 10mbit broadband owner, and starts to upload happily at 50 kbs. Requesting that he could cut this ul to 25 or 20 (usually there are other users as well). Would make my life easier..

I usually let these ppl hang around if their selected ul is not too big, but if it takes several hours, I usually disconnect them (I know, its no-no, too but what can I do? Its my downloads or theirs). And I bet there are ppl around who dont even CONSIDER lettting these ppl to ul from them..

Its not their fault that their connection dl so fast. And it isint my fault that my ADSL slows down... Somekind of dl limiter might help with this, I think.

Pycckuu · Post by **Pycckuu** » 2003-02-05 08:30

heh
let`s hope new feature will be in newer versions!
i vote yes!|!

Thanks

bigmoose · Post by **bigmoose** » 2003-02-05 08:30

interesting, wonder if this could be implemented on the hub, we have a problem with the lack of slots, poor adsl 256k/64k / 512/128 and 1500/256

we have upload limiting because our adsl goes wonky, just does, but we have a few users who seem to be downloading from about 10 slots or more, now we have 50 users, about 150 slots in total, but yet there are never any free slots, wondering if this could be some how implemented so the user could only download at a specific ratio? or his dls were slowed or something?

CerthasIM · Post by **CerthasIM** » 2003-02-05 14:36

A download limiter based request system with some level of customizable automatisation seems the best option to me. I suggested it in the Upload limiter thread as well, you might want to cast your vote there.

Danzig · Post by **Danzig** » 2003-02-07 10:49

Just updated my version of upload limited dc++ at http://dcpp.netfirms.com with 0.231
It's just the same code as the 0.18 version, but no minimal limit/extra tag this time

meermanr · Post by **meermanr** » 2003-02-09 09:06

Almost perfect

It is possible to get a version which allows limiting up to 10Mbytes a second?
100kbps is ridiculously slow for our LAN network!
I want something in the region of 4,096Kbps ish..

Can I get the source code? I want to add a periodic check for "Is Media Player Running" or "Is the Screensaver active"

fregu334 · Post by **fregu334** » 2003-02-15 15:43

SARF! Why are you so mean?
If you don't like the idea just say so!
You don't have to babble on and make fun of ppl.
This IS a forum, ppl ARE meant to express their ideas!

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-02-15 18:29

fregu334 wrote:SARF! Why are you so mean?
If you don't like the idea just say so!
You don't have to babble on and make fun of ppl.
This IS a forum, ppl ARE meant to express their ideas!

Whoah, Shakespere! We are be having a game to Smurf here. Let's Smurf!

from All Your Smurf Are Belong to Smurf

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-02-15 18:32

GargoyleMT wrote:
fregu334 wrote:SARF! Why are you so mean?
If you don't like the idea just say so!
You don't have to babble on and make fun of ppl.
This IS a forum, ppl ARE meant to express their ideas!
Whoa! Shakespere! Hello? We must are be having a game to Smurf here. Let's Smurf!

from All Your Smurf Are Belong to Smurf

sarf · Post by **sarf** » 2003-02-16 16:18

fregu334 wrote:SARF! Why are you so mean?

I am from Sweden. As someone so eloquently put it, "Swedes - colder than their climate".
Also relevant to the issue, my toes itch, and I have a nasty hygiene problem. Does that answer your question, or must I continue explaining why you inferior primates have to die?

fregu334 wrote:If you don't like the idea just say so!

Why, when I can have so much more fun by ripping someones idea, nay, their very dream to shreds in a semi-public place like this nice forum?

fregu334 wrote:You don't have to babble on and make fun of ppl.

<whine> "But I wanna babble on! Bwaaaaah!" </whine>
Making fun of people isn't against the law (at least, not in my country). You have the right to your own opinion, you have the right to express that opinion (as long as you do not threaten people by doing so) but you have the responsability to listen to what other people think about your opinion. On another note, if I do not make fun of people then fewer people will listen to what I have to say.

fregu334 wrote:This IS a forum, ppl ARE meant to express their ideas!

No, people are meant to bow down and worship me! Bwahahahaha!

Hrm. Seriously speaking, this forum is meant to discuss "controversial" features, but all I see are "tin-foil" feature-requests for things that look and feel good, but are not critical to DC++. While that is not wrong, it means that the original purpose of the forum is not fulfilled, and thus the discussion for really important features have been moved to other, less official and accessable places, such as private messages.

By the by, using abbreviations such as "ppl" in written text means that either you are a lazy person or that you do not care about your readers enough to write things out for them, you horrible person.
I suspect your underthings smell, too.

Unseriously yours,
Sarf
---
"Everyone shall be ruled by my iron fist! You there! Obey the fist!" - Invader Zim (quotation may be different from your experience - please complain at Company Headquarters if that is the case)

Justen · Post by **Justen** » 2003-02-18 17:50

Well, downloadlimiter may not be the most important thing in the upgrade list, and it certainly isint needed for the use of Direct Connect Plus Plus. However, it can also be said that bicycle works well even without a seat, but having one makes the bike consideraply easier to use.
The fact is, that DC++ works fairly well. If the programmer so wants, he could fix the few bugs the program still has, publish it as the final version and leave it to that. BUT I think (correct me if im wrong) that he wants to make the program better, to suit better to peoples needs. Maybe these "tin-foil" feature-requests are not important to you, so be it. You can use your favorite version of DC++ until the end of time, or until police becomes too interested in the users of the program.
However, some people wish to make their life easier. They feel that these [/i]"tin-foil" features[/i] would be good for the program.
People are constantly whining about ADSL and its upload thingy. Download limiter may not solve the problem, but it might ease it a little. And in the other topic about DL limiter somebody already said about feeling bad about taking the the whole upload bandwilth, even though he would be alright even if the download would complete little later.

Download limiter might not be important to you, sarf, but for me it would be the same as a seat in a bike, for me. When I started this topic, I was serious. I thought that I had thought something orginal ( looking back now, I probaply havent ), and I thought this might solve the question of uploading limiter, at least in some cases.
I, as a newbie, thought that my suggestion might get at least some attention, that people would seriously think would this feature be worth the work that coding it will cause. I was more or less ready to defend my idea. Maybe it would be filed as "not needed", but I thought it was at least worth thinking.

I am sorry. It seems that I have made a fool of myself. After all, DC++ works fairly well, and thats the important thing. Actually, you could just destroy the whole forum, as it dosent have any meaning.

Thank you for listening for my mindless rant.

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2003-02-18 19:45

Justen, I'm not sure I understand the direction of your rant. Sarf is a competent programmer (he made DC++k), and he seemed to be commenting that this forum was specifically labeled for "controversial features". Yours seems to fall partly into that category, but many other here do not.

If you want download limiting, I can give it to you, though mine is currently tied in with some upload throttling code. Once you've seen one, you can figure out how to do the other (I made DL throttler after seeing Sarf's code). I'm not sure if Arne would accept it, because of that fact, but I can certainly submit a patch to him. I also noticed that other people (using the RFE tracker off DC++'s sourceforge homepage) requested download capping/throttling, so you're not alone.

The inter-client "download throttling" message requests to slow downloads would not work too well. Or rather, it'd be a lot of hassle, and I can imagine too many cases where it wouldn't do any good.

sarf · Post by **sarf** » 2003-02-19 04:38

Justen wrote:[snipped analogy]

I did not intend to attack you with my rant. It was merely a byproduct of having tried to flame fregu334 or whatever its name was.

Justen wrote:The fact is, that DC++ works fairly well. If the programmer so wants, he could fix the few bugs the program still has, publish it as the final version and leave it to that. BUT I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that he wants to make the program better, to suit better to peoples needs.

I'd suspect that too, all I was saying was that the Feature forum is described as "Discuss your _controversial_ feature requests here! Check the feature request trackers at sf.net/projects/dcplusplus first though!".

Blaim me for letting my temper run away with me.

Justen wrote:Maybe these "tin-foil" feature-requests are not important to you, so be it. You can use your favorite version of DC++ until the end of time, or until police becomes too interested in the users of the program.

Yes, well, I will personally make my version of DC++ better, adding the features I feel are necessary to facilitate its use.

Justen wrote:However, some people wish to make their life easier. They feel that these "tin-foil" features would be good for the program.

Ah. Here is where I must differ, as people generally ask for features that are either a) not going to be implemented by arne (upload limiter, connecting to more than one hub at a time in the public hub list and so on) or b) duplicates of other feature requests or c) useless for all but a very small segment of users. There are, of course, features that are useful to a majority, but most of them are either poorly described or fail to take into account the DC protocol. Yes, I require that people who ask for features have some clue what they are asking for - too much to expect, perhaps, but I will not pander to people whom do not want or do not care enough to do some background research. That's just me though, arne seems to be able to overcome any such base emotions.

Justen wrote:People are constantly whining about ADSL and its upload thingy. Download limiter may not solve the problem, but it might ease it a little. And in the other topic about DL limiter somebody already said about feeling bad about taking the the whole upload bandwilth, even though he would be alright even if the download would complete little later.

I do agree myself, but as I consider the issue to be flawed - the client should be able to control its own bandwidth, since that will solve all problems of bandwidth. For information about how the "1 byte/s lusers" could be fixed, see the rating server thread(s).

Justen wrote:Download limiter might not be important to you, sarf, but for me it would be the same as a seat in a bike, for me. When I started this topic, I was serious. I thought that I had thought something orginal ( looking back now, I probaply havent ), and I thought this might solve the question of uploading limiter, at least in some cases.

I installed download limiting into my client (though my client has upload limiting as well) - so I think I consider it as important to me. A reason for me personally to have it is that I do not like the performance hit on my system when I start to download at megabytes per second from people on my local ISP.

Justen wrote:I, as a newbie, thought that my suggestion might get at least some attention, that people would seriously think would this feature be worth the work that coding it will cause. I was more or less ready to defend my idea. Maybe it would be filed as "not needed", but I thought it was at least worth thinking.

Uhm... Did you read my first message in this thread at all? Or did you think I was merely jesting in it?

Justen wrote:I am sorry. It seems that I have made a fool of myself. After all, DC++ works fairly well, and thats the important thing. Actually, you could just destroy the whole forum, as it dosent have any meaning.

The forum fills a purpose, but that purpose is not the one it was designed to fill (I think). This issue is a (mildly) controversial feature, but asking for the ability to connect to the whole public hub list is not - it is a stupid feature since arnetheduck has repeatedly answered this feature request with "not while I'm in charge, bucko" or something similar to it.

Justen wrote:Thank you for listening for my mindless rant.

You're very welcome.

GargoyleMT wrote:The inter-client "download throttling" message requests to slow downloads would not work too well. Or rather, it'd be a lot of hassle, and I can imagine too many cases where it wouldn't do any good.

Yes, it is a bit of a messy feature, but it's a better way to handle things than trying to use the human factor by sending PMs and adjusting the download speed manually.

Sarf
---
Death by design, life by chance.

Justen · Post by **Justen** » 2003-02-19 04:55

GargoyleMT: Thank you for the offer to provide me the code, but it wouldnt do much good as my abilities in coding are, if not nonexistent, at least several levels under the needed ability to do something like modifying code (I think).
One reason for me to write this topic was to make someone interested in doing the work, because I myself could not do it. I know, pretty pathetic but no reason to start denying it.

Sarf. I did read your first message in this thread, during the next 12 hours after you wrote it. Its just that I happen to check this forum only for this thread, the upload limiter thread (I voted 'No' btw) and the other dl limiter, thread. So, I check the topic once a day, usually, and only the new messages. Sadly, the first thing I forget after reading a message is who wrote it. By the time you posted that flame of yours, I have already completly forgotten your first post. Im sorry.

The main reason for the above post was the fact that I had made the request as something that would rise discussion ( I admid that I had not read any of the other topics, only their names, so I was not quite sure how things worked here). After seeing that my thread was going directly to hell with some stupid oneliners and flames, I quess I got little heated up back there.

Forgive me.

Downloads limiter

Downloads limiter

Re: Downloads limiter