Now that nmdc has a cap

[Menchi]

I want to start a petition to get proper bandwidth management into DC++


Lack of bandwidth management has caused the DC community to become diseased. Fakeshares, slot blockers, auto-kickers, modem fishing, unpopular files, min slots, are all there because it is painful to share. I want to share, share longer, share popular files, kick less, and keep sane slots.

Why does DC++ need upload management?
- prevent people from using non-standard clients
- it is painful to share with lag/choke problems not fixed with the small send buffer
- encourage people to share (instead of the alternatives)
- unfair shares (less aggressive uploads are pushed out)
- ISP quota's

The real issue here is that ISP's have created a world where upload bandwidth is scarce. We can't fix that, but we can fix DC++.


requirements:

User set (auto detecting is trickier than it looks)
- no reliable way to determine the connection
- % of bandwidth may be needed for other (unknown) reasons
- only we can know what we need, and will soon learn it isn't that much
standard (no moded versions of DC++)
- Everyone should be allowed to share, having to search for modified DC++ clients only makes this harder
- "hacked" clients will be less common (no need to compile your own)
- a standard tag allows hub operators to filter easily
fair
- prevent a single connection from taking over
- dealing with 56k connections
- "wasted" bandwidth should be kept to a minimum
Smooth
- ping times should not be affected
- makes online games possible (usually needs only 5k & a good ping)


myths:

its hard to do - it has been done
- the patch has been submitted to SF before
- Source is available everywhere

alternative uploading will kill dc - There are things that many consider more important than uploading on dc, are they? Should DC++ decide for you?
- servers; DC Hubs, ftp, games
- other p2p programs
- shared connections

I get Slow speeds from 'leechers' - slow downloading is not caused by leechers.
- this has more to do with network structure than hacked clients
- have you tried using small send buffer? ;)
- Capping doesn’t start out at 20k/sec and then go down, but if someone grabs an extra slot from the same person they could steal a disproportionate amount from your potential download.

'Leechers' - What kind of person is a leech? A leech is considered someone who does not contribute. Why would they do that?
- They care about downloading, but they can't control your connection speed.
- They do not care what they upload, otherwise that would be called contributing in some way.
- Capping at 1k does not make my connection go faster than capping at 28k (2k less than my ISP's cap).
- ISP caps do not automagically turn people into leaches.

Its easy to fake tags! - how many people do you think will bother to compile dc?
- compiling DC++ isn’t a piece of cake
- however, it is easy to download a 'hacked' program

The Swedish will stop using it - I don’t care about you, just don’t bother the developers. Stay in your own hubs and set up a bot to kick "unfamiliar" IP's like you have been doing anyway.


statistics:

DC++ u/d 6.5
Upload: 425.06 GB
Download: 67.50 GB
to be fair, I also use Usenet (the best 'p2p' of them all)
up: ~30GB * (# of users who downloaded my posts)
down: 464.60 GB

78% of cappers upload more than download
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/forum ... .php?t=840


contact:

dchub://hexfury.dyndns.org : Ender
(I wont kick you for capping)

[Wisp]

just download netlimiter (www.netlimiter.com)

i also use it, before i knew the program, i allways turned off dc++ when my file was finished downloading because internet was extremely slow when i upload things

now i can leave dc++ on while i surf the net because i have limited it

limiting bandwidh is not lame, but the abuse of it is lame, i limited my connection from 16kb/s to about 10kb/s because otherwise my download speed would go down from 180kb/s to about 10kb/s, so when i can reserve 6 kb upload for myself i am able to download files at high speed,and still letting people download stuff from me

i realise 10kb/s is not much but i have only 16kb/s (in holland all cable ISP's use that limit, i wish i lived in sweden)

[Menchi]

Indeed, there are so many solutions I did not think it was necessary to mention them.

I dont think we should encorage hacked clients, or netlimiter, as they usually avoid sharing the information with other dc users with a special tag. This is one of the reasons the DC community has become so diseased.

[jbyrd]

I dont think we should encorage hacked clients, or netlimiter, as they usually avoid sharing the information with other dc users with a special tag.

True.

78% of cappers upload more than download

Not true, I bet. You have to realize that a poll like that is biased. The only ones that answered are the ones that have capped, and the ones that have capped want to avoid making capping look like a leeching tool. Chances are, no one wrote down what their numbers were before capping, and they probably didn't even bother to open open dc++ to see what it was after capping.

It would be a good feature if it wasn't abusable. Until then, I'm an anti-capper.

-------
If you think that your downloads are slow without capping, wait until your downloading from someone that is capping. -jbyrd

[Menchi]

Sure, as long as you want hacked clients to be more popular than DC++ ...
The point of that poll was show everyone else what we already know. We dont need to lie.

When you cap, you leave DC++ on.

[jbyrd]

When you cap, you leave DC++ on.

Yeah, but what if you're not using your computer? Are you still going to cap--or will you turn the capping off?

I, personally, have not found that it significantly raises my ping for gaming, or that it sucks up cpu. But, that's just me.

You know when my downloads download the most? At night. When I'm sleeping. So, when I don't cap, I leave dc++ on.

Oh, and you know when most people leave dc++ on? When they are downloading something (and they will regardless if dc++ had capping or not).

[TheNOP]

To jbyrd

I do not condem nor encourage capping.

But i do use capping feature as i have a server on same network (no... not a Hub... yet )

You forgeting that bandwidth can cost more money if it goes higher then the montly allowed bandwidth.
So they do not let there puter on all night onless they can cap the speed.

Hell even capping 1k is better then fake sharing.... at lest you have more chance to get something.....even if it's take time.

Patience seem to be a lost virtue these days.

[jbyrd]

Patience seem to be a lost virtue these days.

Well, you're exactly right. That is the case with me. I don't feel like waiting for someone to upload to me at 1k/s. If I didn't mind waiting, I would get kazaa or bearshare.

Another note: What you're forgetting is that people will uncap only if they are downloading something. If you are worried about bandwidth, if you download the file in 20 seconds or 20 minutes, it's all the same SIZE.

So, the bandwidth issue is really all about uploading. If you don't want to upload at a decent speed, you're just wasting my time...and you're damning the DC network.

My point is this: People will NOT cap when they are downloading...only when downloads are idle. The bandwidth issue is about uploads, because downloads are tamed by simply downloading less files.
To me, it's all about leeching. You don't mind using someone else's upload bandwidth, but you want to limit your own.

[TheNOP]

You don't mind using someone else's upload bandwidth, but you want to limit your own.

I rarely dl files and i don't mind waiting weeks for what i dl.
i remind you that i run a server so if it isnt sharing my bandwidth...

but yes it truth they might uncap only when downloadling an then it's time to grab from them
seriously do you think that they will wait till no upload to start downloading ?

i don't thinks the majority of user cap for leeching, it is more because of the bandwidth cost.

anyways you got your vision , i have mine

regards

[TheNOP]

i fergot to say that a 1:1 ratio would be fair and all i would ask in capping feature no possible way to abuse that if you can't compile dc your self

[jbyrd]

I respect your view ...but when you say:

all i would ask in capping feature no possible way to abuse that if you can't compile dc your self

It doesn't matter if you can't compile dc++...you could simply use a cracked client that someone else compiled.

[iK]

I hardly download from DC anyways. I only share. I can't stand the p2p speeds.

I use BCDC++. I have it capped to 15k during the day, and its uncapped at night (automatic decapper built into BCDC++) while I'm sleeping. I do cap it at 1k when gaming, but the result, if downloading, my download would go 1k. You can cap a minimum of 6k before your download starts getting autocapped in BCDC++.

And NMDC2.0 allows capping by the byte. Not to mention, you don't have to show your tag. You can emulate a NMDC tag in BCDC++, but it's never 100%.

I'm on a shared connection, max upload of 32k. And not to get yelled at by complaining parents/family members, I cap. If I wasn't on a shared connection, I'd only cap during online gaming.Now, it doesn't matter what you do. There will always be a capper. Somebody will always leech. Get over it, ban them, all is well. But hey, atleast hacked clients add a B: x or a L: x into the tag to show what your limit is at.

[iK]

Err... Forgot to add that NMDC2 has a 8:1 cap ratio. 1byte up, 8byte down.

[Menchi]

It would be a good feature if it wasn't abusable. Until then, I'm an anti-capper.

I should have put that into the “myths� section, but I thought it was obvious from everything else. Ratio's can work, but they are only needed to pacify those who don’t understand the reasons why capping is needed (hint: poll is closer to the truth than you think). A standard tag like L:* or B:* works as well.

That’s all beside the point. The point is that there is no reason for abuse. Lack of banwidth management has created a community that thinks avoiding contributing can be benificial to ones self. You aren’t going to bleed more bandwidth from those ISP-capped fileshares. Users needs for some % of bandwidth are legitimate, and DC++ can be an incredibly unforgiving hog. The only problem is those who think that capping at 1k is going to somehow benefit them.

Those who don't want to share won't. Those who do want to share need this feature.

If you think that your downloads are slow without capping, wait until your downloading from someone that is capping. -jbyrd

You will get 10k/sec per slot from me (8k w/o capping because of those other slots pushing you out)
If you think that’s slow try 0k/sec while I ritualistically kill DC++ immediately after my downloads finish (or just kick you so they can finish).

When I don't cap, I leave dc++ off.

[TheNOP]

It doesn't matter if you can't compile dc++...you could simply use a cracked client that someone else compiled.

i have realise that yesterday... till a way is found to trust clients
anyone with a hexeditor and a little bit of knowledge can abuse.

unless a hub is made to check actual speed of a clients connections
or a client is made to check that as a simple user to kick bad speed clients(hub must show this client as a user but would in reality be an op or a ways for a one or more simple user exception is made able to kick)
this kind of detection would cost a lots of bandwidth usage since you have to start a transfer just to check.

again i am not against capping or those that ban clients because of that just follow the hub rules and all will be fine for everyone.
but i don't see the point to block capping clients as it's a matter of time that some knowledge people add that to clients that don't have the feature already.source are on internet.....and some stelt clients to....