Reinsert the "small send buffer" function?
Moderator: Moderators
Reinsert the "small send buffer" function?
I'd like to see that function in future releases of DC++, downloads are effectively killing any possibilitys for me to download anything, true enough, sharing's the idea of DC++, but still it'd be nice to see that option again.
Anyone thinking differently?
Anyone thinking differently?
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: 2003-04-22 14:37
So that would suggest that there's no way of getting the same results with the latest version of DC++, unless you understand the expert settings page, which i don't?
I mean, all i'd like is for me to be able to download a few files now and then, which i can't right now....
Will there be any help doc explaining the expert setting in the future?
Thanks again
I mean, all i'd like is for me to be able to download a few files now and then, which i can't right now....
Will there be any help doc explaining the expert setting in the future?
Thanks again
Maybe anybody on ADSL should not bother upgrading to a client that the authors won't/can't tell us how to get to work correctly....TheParanoidOne wrote:No, you should leave it alone and it will use the default value.ratsalad wrote:So I should just put the "64*1024" value, then?
For that entire settings page, only put values in if you know what the value means and the ramifications of changing them.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 2004-03-06 02:46
The behavior of the old "small send buffer" and the new "socket write buffer" are entirely different. The old one only limited it to writing a small amount at a time to the socket, the new one actually sets the TCP buffer. This means that the maximum throughput is the buffer size divided by the latency: set it to 1024 and it'll slow everything to a crawl.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 2004-01-23 14:45
FFSgemmell1 wrote:FFS- have you read the thread? I want the option enabled so i can download properly !!!!!!!
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
It is enabled. 1024 is the default value, which is also the value used in older clients, when this option is enabled.
Code: Select all
#define SMALL_BUFFER_SIZE 1024
The Default setting of newer clients, is EXACTLY the same as having that box ticked in older clients.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
This deserves to be said again, since he's right:
PseudonympH wrote:The behavior of the old "small send buffer" and the new "socket write buffer" are entirely different. The old one only limited it to writing a small amount at a time to the socket, the new one actually sets the TCP buffer. This means that the maximum throughput is the buffer size divided by the latency: set it to 1024 and it'll slow everything to a crawl.
Hi, I'm also having trouble downloading when uploading using the latest release (v0.691), too.
Using v0.674's 'Use Small Send Buffer' worked a dream, and my connection (512/256 ADSL) could max out either/or/and any way together, as needed.
However, with v0.691 the download speed decreases massively when uploading.
So reading from this thread, I gather I don't enter 1024 as the Socket Write Buffer, and that the Socket Write Buffer isn't the same as the previous Use Small Send Buffer feature anyway.
So what do I do?
Think I'm going to have to go back to v0.674. I don't really want to use a netlimiter as it would slow other people downloading from you, and you can get booted from certain hubs if you use one anyway.
Thanks
Using v0.674's 'Use Small Send Buffer' worked a dream, and my connection (512/256 ADSL) could max out either/or/and any way together, as needed.
However, with v0.691 the download speed decreases massively when uploading.
So reading from this thread, I gather I don't enter 1024 as the Socket Write Buffer, and that the Socket Write Buffer isn't the same as the previous Use Small Send Buffer feature anyway.
So what do I do?
Think I'm going to have to go back to v0.674. I don't really want to use a netlimiter as it would slow other people downloading from you, and you can get booted from certain hubs if you use one anyway.
Thanks
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 587
- Joined: 2003-05-07 02:38
- Location: Sweden, Linkoping
Which is more or less the same thing you do by using a small send buffer, the computer will just not be able to send that much data on the same time as it can with a larger one.charly123 wrote: I don't really want to use a netlimiter as it would slow other people downloading from you
The hubs has no way of detecting that you are using netlimiter (if you do have a reasonable limit, usually somehere at 80% of you max upload speed).charly123 wrote: , and you can get booted from certain hubs if you use one anyway.
Thanks for the reply. Although, that's not what I experienced in physical, real-world use. Enabling the UseSmallSendBuffer option caused absolutely no drop in speed for outgoing (uploading) data. It could max out and upload at 30kbytes/s without any effort. The only discernable difference was a substantially increased download speed for me. To re-iterate, upload speed was unaffected, regardless of download traffic.joakim_tosteberg wrote:Which is more or less the same thing you do by using a small send buffer, the computer will just not be able to send that much data on the same time as it can with a larger one.charly123 wrote: I don't really want to use a netlimiter as it would slow other people downloading from you
For now, I have reverted back to DC++ v0.674.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 2006-06-26 01:00
It's been a while since I've used DC and I just downloaded the latest version 0.691. Immediately I could tell there was a difference in download speed. I looked for the small send buffer option but couldn't find it so it so I did a google search and landed on this forum. My experience has been the same as charly123. Upload speed (~45k) was never affected with the small send buffer opton enabled. Now without it, my download speed has taken a sharp decline. Even surfing simple web pages takes a long time to load. Before I didn't mind sitting and idling in hubs to let other users download from me because there was no noticeable difference while surfing the net. I hope the programmers bring that option back or let us know how to optimally set the new options. Until then I'm also reverting back to v0.674
have you actually read this thread?twilightking wrote:It's been a while since I've used DC and I just downloaded the latest version 0.691. Immediately I could tell there was a difference in download speed. I looked for the small send buffer option but couldn't find it so it so I did a google search and landed on this forum. My experience has been the same as charly123. Upload speed (~45k) was never affected with the small send buffer opton enabled. Now without it, my download speed has taken a sharp decline. Even surfing simple web pages takes a long time to load. Before I didn't mind sitting and idling in hubs to let other users download from me because there was no noticeable difference while surfing the net. I hope the programmers bring that option back or let us know how to optimally set the new options. Until then I'm also reverting back to v0.674
You can send a message around the world in 1/7 of a second; yet it may take several years to move a simple idea through a 1/4 inch of human skull.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 2006-06-26 01:00
If you wanna be a smartass about it, yes I have read the thread. And no, your claim to leaving the settings alone did not have the same effect as (I'm assuming you meant enabling) enabling the old option. There was a substantial decrease in download bandwidth for me, so much that I couldn't even simply surf the internet. That is why I posted, hoping the programmers would hear more voices and make changes on future versions.Quattro wrote:
have you actually read this thread?
Wow, so much arguement between the people who have no idea
Not saying I do know anything, but taking this from a completely third party stance on the issue (I'm on a LAN only internet networked hub of 200 odd users)
Qn to Moderators/Admin: Is there still a function inside the Settings of DC++ that replicates the effectiveness of "Small Send Buffer" or was it really a placebo function in previous clients?
Qn to Moderators/Admin: Is there still a function inside the Settings of DC++ that replicates the effectiveness of "Small Send Buffer" or was it really a placebo function in previous clients?
coz MacsRBest
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2006-08-31 15:28
Re: Wow, so much arguement between the people who have no id
Asc3nti0n wrote: Qn to Moderators/Admin: Is there still a function inside the Settings of DC++ that replicates the effectiveness of "Small Send Buffer" or was it really a placebo function in previous clients?
This still seems to be an eminently reasonable question unanswered in the thread.
Using .674 with "use small send buffers" selected, everything works great. Using .691 lacking that option, my Web surfing slows to an absolute crawl. It's almost unusable. I have tested with .691 running and not running many times. It's definitely DC++ .691, and .674 exhibits the same problem if I don't have "use small send buffers" checked.
So the question remains: are there any settings to use in .691 that duplicate "use small send buffers" from .674?
Many thanks in advance for feedback. Seems it could be helpful to many.
-
- DC++ Contributor
- Posts: 3212
- Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
- Location: .pa.us
Re: Wow, so much arguement between the people who have no id
Some people believed that the socket read and write buffers would duplicate the option, but they do not (see earlier in the thread). There are no other features that would be even remotely similar.winthorpejones wrote:So the question remains
We really need "use small send buffer" function back! After I installed 0.691 my DC++ uploads goto absolute max and my Internet surfing suffers really bad. I can download pretty much normally in DC++ though.
I tried to set "Socket write buffer" to 4096 and some other values but the uploads just went really low or died completely.
Since no-one wants to inform us 0.691 users about what to insert in "Socket write buffer" and only suggest leaving that untouched there is only one option left, go back to 0.674.
ADSL 1024/512
I tried to set "Socket write buffer" to 4096 and some other values but the uploads just went really low or died completely.
Since no-one wants to inform us 0.691 users about what to insert in "Socket write buffer" and only suggest leaving that untouched there is only one option left, go back to 0.674.
ADSL 1024/512
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2006-07-26 22:00
- Location: Sweden
What value should i put in it? Im using a 2mbit/500kb line.TheParanoidOne wrote: Note that in 0.6811 this item is now a configurable value. See Settings -> Advanced -> Experts Only -> Socket write buffer.
My downloads tends to slow down a lot in newer versions so the only option is to go back to 0.674 with "send small buffer" option enabled.
The newer versions are very bad
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Ive read through the whole thread atleast 10 times.