RevConnect 0.401a Released
Moderator: Moderators
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
He was only asking; notice the "?"liny wrote:you are wrong.
So I assume from this information then that RevConnect is just like it was a while ago, but at least working now, and also now with an added feature of searching by TTH?
GargoyleMT wrote:Is multisource safe yet?
So again nothing has been changed from its original implementation. So therefore its still not safe? (Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying its horrible or unusable if this is true.)liny wrote:for expert like you, it's safe.
My Visual Studio .NET 2003 is licensed under my name, and the same for my operating system... What about you?
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.
I surf on an OC3 without limitations, two to be exact, and I'm not joking.
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
True, but you can at least use TTHes, returned by search results and in XML file lists, to be an excellent guide to file compatibiliy. If the roots are the same, incremental verification isn't necessary.liny wrote:But tth is only used for search, can not be used to verify file...
Because no way to get peer's hash tree unless dc++ god do it for us.
Anyhow, I'm mostly referring to this experiment by OrangeSlice:
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... php?t=7486
He found that the Reverse Connect code in ZDC corrupted most of his downloads, and as such, we've been discouraging users from trying any product based on your code since then.
Even before hashing, a rollback system was a pretty "safe" hack to ensure that downloads weren't corrupted.
Is RC now using $GetZBlock to get segments?
If Reverse Connect respects file integrity, there's no reason t hate it. However, if your code will corrupt transfers though picking incompatible sources (or otherwise), your client is bad for the DC network. Multi-source has to be safe before any responsible coder would make it public.liny wrote:If you dislike, please comment it gently and justly.
Yes, tth is helpful to pick out wrong sources.GargoyleMT wrote: True, but you can at least use TTHes, returned by search results and in XML file lists, to be an excellent guide to file compatibiliy. If the roots are the same, incremental verification isn't necessary.
If you only use sources with the same hash, the possibility of corruption will be very very low.
The reason of curruption is bad/wrong sources. NOT the code.GargoyleMT wrote: Anyhow, I'm mostly referring to this experiment by OrangeSlice:
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... php?t=7486
He found that the Reverse Connect code in ZDC corrupted most of his downloads, and as such, we've been discouraging users from trying any product based on your code since then.
I recommend you try yourself and let more users try and make comments.
I don't agree this. Rollback is useful, but it is not a pretty way.GargoyleMT wrote: Even before hashing, a rollback system was a pretty "safe" hack to ensure that downloads weren't corrupted.
Many users still got currupted download by using DC++.
By see the tth of search results many users have the same hash of currupted download.
The reason of corruption which RevConnect can't avoid, current DC++ can't avoid too.
If I make a fake share, I promise rollback system will not work anymore, if you download from me.
DC++ with 'rollback' is better than nothing, but not much.
No.GargoyleMT wrote: Is RC now using $GetZBlock to get segments?
1) my users are still using old version of DC++
2) my current algorithm doesn't fit $GetZBlock, more effort is needed
No, what a lot of people hate and fear is multi-sources.GargoyleMT wrote: If Reverse Connect respects file integrity, there's no reason t hate it.
If 'rollback' is pretty, you should not worry about that at all. :)GargoyleMT wrote: However, if your code will corrupt transfers though picking incompatible sources (or otherwise),
your client is bad for the DC network.
Multi-source has to be safe before any responsible coder would make it public.
All I need is something like BCDC++'s $GetMeta but implemented by DC++
It's not responsible to save tons of leaf hash in disk and do not use them.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
If the source blindly copies sources together - I.E. doesn't ensure that at least the boundaries overlap and are the same, then the problem is the source (for not being robust with bad input). If all the corruption is occuring in the middle of a segment, I agree, that there was nothing you can do about it.liny wrote:The reason of curruption is bad/wrong sources. NOT the code.
I recommend you try yourself and let more users try and make comments.
Rollback is a nifty hack. But it solves the problem, superficially, without having to extend the system.liny wrote:By see the tth of search results many users have the same hash of currupted download.
The reason of corruption which RevConnect can't avoid, current DC++ can't avoid too.
If I make a fake share, I promise rollback system will not work anymore, if you download from me.
DC++ with 'rollback' is better than nothing, but not much
It's nice to see the corruption inherent in the system, finally. I hope that we can bring this to user's attention and users will care about file integrity now...
I understand that. Isn't it more about what version of clients that others use, though? $GetTestZBlock has been enabled since 0.302.liny wrote:1) my users are still using old version of DC++
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Agreed. New converts want it, and old users think it will subvert their precious slot system. Hubops fear that min-slot rules will cease to have meaning. (I'm sure I've missed some other points too.)liny wrote:No, what a lot of people hate and fear is multi-sources.
It is a disapointment that 0.307 didn't flesh out the hashing system. What's done is done. As new hash-related feature trickle in, maybe the users who dislike them will see their usefulness.liny wrote:It's not responsible to save tons of leaf hash in disk and do not use them.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
liny wrote:Thanks for all of your helpful comments and suggestion from the first day I came here.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)