Features I need
 

Just 2 features I need that annoy me while using KazaaLite.

1) I'd like to share video files; but I don't like all of my queues being taken up by one or two files. It would be very nice if I could designate how many que slots to give different share folders. I realize this flies in the face of "ease of use" but I'm sure they could toss an "Advanced" tab somewhere.

With video files as popular as they are it would be nice to give them a consistent 2 free slots while leaving another 4 open for everything else.

2) Kazaa needs a fucking "drop below this transfer speed"... So does WinMX. I remember Morpheus I think had this feature? Or maybe it was Direct Connect... I know IRC scripts do but whatever; these 56k people set up multi source (or multiple) downloads and are taking up a slot by grabbing at .56k/s. It's a waste of my slots.

Re: Features I need
 

This is a very good proposition. Now that multisourcing has made WinMX technically suitable for movie sharing a similar need has arisen there. Probably the simplest solution would be if you could run multiple instances of the client with their own separate shares and queue/bandwidth settings.

- tg ;)

Hmmm...another smack at the no-bandwidth crowd, I see. Well, why don't we just entirely eliminate dial-up Internet access to make the broadbanders feel all warm and squishy since they won't have to worry about anything. Just when that dies down a little someone has to start it up again. I don't try multiple downloads (unless the filesizes are very small, like sound clips of about 30 seconds, or maybe pictures), and don't multisource since I don't even use WinMX 3.1, or any other apps that support it. Thanks, assorted - I really need a reminder that there are people out there who will amass large collections but only leave them open to a select few in practicality. Sure, technically you're entitled, even though it also makes you seem to be taking a very large piss. There's usually an instance sometime where someone will lose their high-speed for one reason or another - tech problems or other issues. I wonder how they'd like being on the outside. Ah well, just drop your p2p names and I'll keep tabs on whom not to download from. Cheers.

It seems to me the best solution would be to abandon download queues and simply let as many people download as want to download. I'd much rather have a slow tranfer speed that be stuck a a queue, receiving nothing at all. Especially with multi-source downloads implemented, things should move in this direction.

I would like to have

Start upload if current total bandwidth use is less then limit.

Why the hell would a dial up user even have the odacity to hamper a boradband users file sharing experince? Dial up was never really meant for file sharing any way.

Its like walking to the store when you can easily drive.

A 56ker downloading a 700mb dvd rip. They should have thier f**king heads examined.

Stick to mp3s and web sites.

I have never understood why modem users are considered to be a nuisance. A modem user could be downloading from me right now and it would make absolutely no difference to me. Why should I care? Why should anyone care?

the one reason you might care is if you've set simultaneous upload limits. i have and mine is usually set to 5. if a 56ker takes a slot he can be on it for 5-6 hours getting one wheezingly slow file. whereas the same slot taken by dslers could yield dozens of completions which again go right back onto the network for others to share (theoretically). i set no bottom speed caps and, with my mix of slow and high bandwidth users uploading from me, I avg 100 uploads a day. if they were all 56kers the totals might be 95% less. it’s not an issue for me in general but it can’t be argued that the networks aren’t better off with faster users.

- js.

It seems to me that the modem users aren't the problems, but rather the servents that implement a limit on the number of simulateneous. As I said in an early post, I don't see the point in such a limit and so I guess I don't consider it when think about modem users.

As for modem users not helping the network, I'd rather download a segment of a file at 3k/s from a modem user than not be able to download it at all.

i have limited the number of uploads to 2 (my max uload is 6KByte/s) for the following reasons:

• of course i hope that the individual upload speed is higher, thus finishing a file quicker
• if individual upload is quicker, the file at the other user computer is available earlier for resharing
• i am not online 24/7, so I want users to finish the uploads before i cut the line
• i'm firewalled, so if for any reason my supernode changes and a connection drops, this user cannot reconnect to my computer.(i think it works this way)

some thaughts to think about.

one thing i wonder: the real cause, why some upload connection drop down to near zero, is it really because they download so many files in parallel or is there some additional unknown technical reason?

well said, scyth. IMO some of our peers are being a little hard on modem users. A point which may not be generally realised is that in some areas on this planet, there is just no alternative to
modem, except possibly satellite (which, I'm given to understand, is a troublesome alternative at best, let alone expensive). A friend of mine has been trying for months to get cable or adsl, but none of the ISPs can offer these services, and this in a quite sizeable (but not capital) city. I guess patience is a worthy virtue!

I don't have a personal problem with modem users. Although, no one can disagree with me in saying that the p2p networks would be faster if everyone had broadband, but this isn't the case for many reasons. I respect those reasons and choices or no choices to stay with 56k. This being the case I try to work and adapt to the variety of connections speeds found on p2p programs.

When a I have a rare file that I'm trying to spread throughout the network, I do try to give it first only to sharing broadband users in an attempt to try and get more sources available for everyone. It would take days to spread a file if I have a 56k user trys to download from me. To you give you an example, in one day I can upload a movie to 10 broadband users which theoretically will create 10 new sources to download from in just one day. When I get a 56k user trying to download from me, we are talking about days to provide a new source to the network.

So Scyth that's why I choose to limit my upload slots to just 2. If I split my uploads any more then that they become 56k speeds which causes that slow distribution problem. So what I do is try to work around this issue. If I'm one of the few users sharing a popular file I set my upload to 1 and give it out as quickly as I can to all sharing broadband users. Basically, I try to saturate the network with new sources so that everyone can benefit. Once the network has a decent amount of sources then I have no problems with 56k users downloading from me.

If I have a rare but unpopular file then I'll just let anyone who wants it to take it because they might be the only other person willing to share the file.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that like the real world the p2p community is made up of a variety of different users. But instead of different ethnic races and social classes we have differences in connection speeds. And like the real world we all need to work and adapt to these differences in order to mantain peace because I don't see this changing any time soon. I'm not saying that I have the answers or what I have described above is the best solution but there needs to be a movement in thinking of the p2p network as more of a whole rather then a group of individuals.

What assorted has brought up does have merit to it in that it is an attempt to make the network more efficient, which helps everyone....56k, broadband, and I hate to say it also leeches. What I would like to see happening is to be able to dedicate 1 upload slot for 56k users and 1 for broadband users and then adjust things from there. The problem is that since these p2p programs are basically free there isn't a huge desire for the companies to fix or come up with solutions to our problems, which in turn causes a lot of blame being placed on our fellow users. Just look at the leech issue. It's a huge debate in almost every p2p program you go to and yet there has been very little effort by p2p program makers in coming up with a fair solution.

Maybe I'm dreaming but I'm hoping that there will be a huge switch over and developement in open sourced programs....it maybe our only hope for fair and reasonable solutions.

Politically speaking Js
 

Hey JS how long you been a congressman?

Quote... but it can’t be argued that the networks aren’t better off with faster users.

Ohhhhh double negatives all round

I found the best scheme is 4 uploads MAX with no more than 2 per user, that nicely shares resources on my capped (128k) cable.

To adjust, the rates throttle down the wideband conections and giver higher priority to the 56k uploaders to get a nice 4kbytes per user balance .

Guss..

Re: Features I need
 

Well, you broadband elitists will never have to worry about this 56ker attempting to grab a movie off the net. :f:

Net movies = waste-of-time in my book but that's JMHO. I prefer to watch my dvd's on my BIG screen and spend the lousy $$ for the "real deal" instead of going through the aggravation of dling these bloated movie files and THAT goes for whether I have this simple modem or "graduate" to broadband.

OTH I can totally understand why you elitists feel the way you do
:p. I'd love to have the ability to cut a file off when a connection goes <1.00 k/s because someone has 15-20 dl's coming in all at the same time or is sharing absolutely nothing or is on a lousy 56k and multisourcing modem but I really doubt if this "option" will become a reality anytime soon.

Humph and Pffft! :kiss:

editted

wise guy.:p

- js.

We all luv ya JS - :BP: :BB: and even the :PO: (undecided) :D

Yep, we do :kiss:

Re: Re: Features I need
 

The "real deal"! You've got 35mm celluloid prints and you didn't tell us! :SP:

So when can I come round?

oh hush-up twinspan
 

I said $$ not$$$$$$$:att:

But you can come over anytime :BL:

:V:

- js.

Who's Who?
 

Like Who is the Wise Guy, and who is the lover?

Never mind Gr, you can have wideband by proxy, tell me what you would like on CD (apart from that already known)


:S: The Original Mr Cool... Guss

Well GR, if I have anything else you want then I'll be happy to upload to you. I have a lot of respect for 56k users who share what they can on the network. I don't know about other broadband users but my view on all of this is to find a solution and work around this problem because it looks like 56k users will be apart of the network for a long time.

I forgot to mention that when I get a 56k user downloading from me all I do is just open another slot so that others can use my available bandwidth. So basically I start out with 2. If I get 2 broadband users then I leave it at that. If one or both slots get taken up by 56k users then I add more slots appropriately. I just wish that this process can be automated by the p2p program. I believe this would be a fair way to satisfy both the 56k users and broadband users.

Like TG's description of a fair leech control system mentioned awhile back, there needs to be a fair bandwidth control system. A system that can redistribute the available bandwidth depending on who is downloading from you so that no one is discriminated against. I've uploaded to many 56k users and will continue to do so. What I have described in my last post is only if I have a new popular movie which I would like to be spread quickly so that everyone can enjoy.

hehe; you're so sensitive!

I wasn't ragging 56kers; I'm on the internet 56k about half the time myself. I'm annoyed by transfer speeds that are below 1k/s. A 56k user who limits himself to 1 (or even 2) downloads at a time would be pulling down from 2k/s to 5k/s. But under 1k/s is just ridiculous and is a waste of a slot.

So yes, I AM elitist toward 56k people who try to download 10 files at a time. I mean, how stupid can stupid be?

For Snarkie - :V:
For JohnDoe - :V:
For Assorted - :SP: (j/k)

A good post, John. :tu:

The procedure above would be a good, well-defined program for a more intelligent bandwidth control system. WinMX's queue and bandwidth controls are versatile but dumb - they require plenty of human intelligence and interception to handle the complex p2p environment in a decent way. As assorted pointed out, we would actually need separate shares targeted to separate subcommunities, each under its own bandwidth and queue controls. We would probably also want these controls linked together under a master bandwidth control from where it would be easy to throttle the bandwidth economy of the entire application. This kind of arrangement should provide us a pleasant simultaneous existence in two different (albeit overlapping) subcommunities living on the same network.

Leech control as I sketched it out would of course be part of the general bandwidth control system, contributing to the sense of fairness regarding our sharing. But as John's examples show, there is much more to it than leech control. Leeches are just the negative part of the community; its positive social attraction is in the good content and in the good people sharing it. To them we want to give back as much as we can - and as smoothly and efficiently as possible. This creates a need for preferential and rewarding bandwidth tools to complement the 'negative' leech control set. As John's example shows there is a need to classify peers according to their technical (bandwidth) and social (sharing behaviour) qualities and allocate bandwidth and slots accordingly. Most of it could (and should) be done automatically but we would also like to have means to shape our social p2p environment manually so that we could give a preferential treatment to our best contacts. There is nothing wrong in preferential sharing if it co-operates smoothly with the more public sharing. We will favor our friends anyway with some other communication software if our p2p client does not support it.

- tg ;)

TG and all -

With all due respect, isn't this all just wishful thinking on our parts? ;(

Who could we depend upon to create such a dream application? Is it in the interest of the developer? Is it more realistic to hope a fellow user could "enhance" an already established program? What incentive, if any, would be interesting enough for any of them to want to develop a program with the options we need?

I understand these options are actually necessities
and anyone who's used any of the p2p programs (past and present) knows, it's a bad idea to hold one's breath waiting for a much needed improvement.

So I guess I want to know: Here's the wish list now, where do we go from here?

Ho goldenrod! :W:

Ever since Napster happened the ideas and techniques of p2p programming have been spreading among a growing group of programmers, many of them active and enthusiastic p2p users who are willing to contribute some of their skill and spare time to the common good of the p2p revolution. There are several people with programming skills on this forum alone, and there must be hundreds of other similarly p2p-oriented groups and communities around the world with their own programmer members. These are the people who will take p2p to its next phase. We have already learned as a community that we can only expect that much from the commercial p2p ventures - and there is always a price to what we get from them, in form of advertising or spyware. If we want more features without any of the commercial crap there is nobody but ourselves that can provide it. The exchange of experiences and ideas that we do on this forum serves this purpose well - we just need patience to wait for these ideas to gradually get realized, evaluated, accepted and finally implemented to non-commercial, community-oriented p2p applications.

- tg ;)

I need a lover who won't drive me crazy.:cr:

In lieu of that, a mushroom cheese steak sub would be nice...

Right back at'cha goldie :V:

Thanks TG :tu: :spin:

I agree with this too. In my first post I kind of stated something like this. We difinitely need to assign a certain number of upload slots for just 56k and just broadband so that both don't fight over each other to get files.

I believe you summed it up perfectly.

It does feel that way doesn't it....but as TG pointed out there are a handful of programmers that are actual fellow file sharing users and may develop a program that fits our needs. I guess we will just have to wait and see... Whatever the future holds, commercial programs aren't the way to go if they continue with the way they are going.

I think TankGirl's hit the nail on the head, so to speak! First off, I should say that I'm a 6K (uhmm...I mean 56?K) user. However I live in a developing country with only 1 phone company (which was up until recently a government monopoly & even cell-phone companies were required to use it in their infrastructure) which has great rates. I'm therefore online for more than 100 hours per week, and even though I can only d/l about 2Gb in that timeframe, I am sharing quite a few rare videos (particularly anime, which isn't broadcast here {not even DBZ!} except for 1 movie each week on UK SciFi.)

You should all realise that some people have few options, yet want to contribute to p2p communities without being penalised for it. DSL & cable are terms that cause confusion and wonder where I live! The only "broadband" options the public have are ISDN & satellite/dial-up combos (which charge exhorbitant fees PER MB!) and for most this is beyond their means. 'Preferential treatment' should be based more on ability than disability IMO :)

Somebody mentioned the fact that some modem-users are multisourcing their downloads or have a relatively high transfer limit. I think this problem is due to the way the p2p progs (Kazaa in particular, which is probably the most common among dial-up users) don't strictly adhere to their specified limits. There is also a major problem with FT clients going into 'Searching' mode for hours and downloading nothing, then increasing the no. of transfers to compensate, then spiralling out of control after it eventually finds what it was searching for! :( It should try to adhere to a limit of 2, while maximising throughput. Instead you watch as the number increases to 20 'micro-transfers' by the next morning! You people are being rather harsh IMO. I would literally commit several felonies to be in your position of ultimate power!

Yea, me too!
 

WELCOME TO NU P2P SA_Dave

:AP: :beer: :AP:

:BP:

As Dave's example shows bandwidth or shared gigabytes are not the only factors that make a peer worthy to us. The originality of the shared content is a similarly important dimension. Many of the ex and present 56ker I know have turned out to be excellent sources of rare or original material. They cannot compete with the speed of delivery but whatever they deliver at their own slow pace is very valuable. Then there is the dimension of technical quality. In the more social p2p networks and sharing groups we soon learn to know the peers that consistently share only quality material. These people may never rip an original album and their sources may be obscure but their passion for quality guarantees that they share forward only stuff that is thoroughly checked, tagged, documented and complete.

Apart from the technical and content-related factors come also the various human characterics of the peers that may completely overdrive all other issues. A person may have a line that is totally unsuitable for uploading so both quantity and quality of content are out of the picture. But the person may still be able to share his/her expertise, knowledge and contacts and thereby indirectly help us with better Internet connections to get some stuff that we enjoy.

- tg ;)

&nbsp;

Please don't make general statements like this unless you truely mean to verbally attack all broadband users. I for one have broadband, but I'm fully aware of the many different issues and reasons for why some people have to use p2p programs in specfic ways. I also believe that I have done a pretty decent job at adjusting to the many different needs and situations regarding the variaty of different users found on p2p programs. The problem is that currently just about all p2p programs don't have an effective way of fairly distributing bandwidth properly as TG has pointed out.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all broadband users don't appreciate 56k'ers because more then half the time we are downloading something from you since you still make up the majority in p2p programs. Without 56k users the speeds and que lines would be worst then they currently are. Every little bit of bandwidth helps when it comes to p2p.

There just needs to be a fair way to distingush users who have legitimate reasons for doing what they do rather then some users who just don't feel like sharing that day/month, or they don't want to share because they can selfishly get faster speeds. What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly.

These users give users with valid reasons not to share a bad name. The problem is that we can't tell which is which or even which are truely lying. The only reason I know is that a few times I have been curious and have asked someone of these users why they don't share. Image my surprise when they admit that their only reason to not share because they don't want to. Some users also admit that they simply get better speeds if they don't share, which I interpret as, "you do all the work and I'll take all the benefits". What makes it worst is that some of these users state it calmly because they fully know that there's not much I can do about it. There's always someone else they can leech from. Currrent p2p programs don't do much in giving them incentives to change as TG and I have mentioned a few posts back.

And just to let you know SA_Dave and all 56k users, 9 times out of 10 I just let you guys download from me not matter what since you guys are going so slow. This is a very problematic issue which is further aggravated because of the very little willingness by many p2p program makers to solve it.

Hey John........
 

JohnD, guess I should have made myself clearer.

For me it's not an us against them issue at all. It's the few bad apples out there who have no tolerance for 56k users.

Hasn't happened to me much lately but there was a time when I'd actually get cussed out for 1) daring to dl from a bb'r and the best speed I could muster was 4-5 K/s or 3) Being told to go :f: myself if I pm'd someone who wasn't sharing a single thing especially users who had just finished dling a file from me during a previous session or 3) having a speed less than 1 in the midst of multisourcing from many, many users at the same time.

Perhaps it was just mere coincidence that most of these incidences occurred more often than not whenever someone's connection was listed as broadband? :(

Label me the queen of generalizations and stereotyping :o

Nearly 85% of my files came from bb'rs (the majority of which believe in share and share alike mentality............:tu:

Re: Hey John........
 

hey goldie,

I agree it's those bad apples that seem to destroy the meaning of p2p programs. If anything it should be us against the RIAA. Sometimes it sounds more like a divide and conquer tatic by the RIAA only they aren't the ones that started it.

Although, I do understand the frustrations that several users have stated. For me I'm more frustrated about most p2p programs not even addressing this issue. Although, our needs isn't something that most of the commerical programs do too well. Adding spyware and crapware is what they seem to do best.

Hopefully, things will get better and not the other way around.

@JohnDoe - I apologise if any of my remarks were interpreted by you as offensive. I did read all the posts in this topic & I do appreciate your (and other's) understanding attitude. However, I feel that most broadband users (no generalisations intended) are concentrating on the wrong issue. I feel that the problem with leeching is a priority!
Forgive my naivety, but what is a valid reason NOT to share? The only ones I can think of are :[list=A][*]Someone updating multimedia-rich (graphics intensive) sites or pages eg. a musician, graphic designer or web-site publisher, on a slow connection.[*]Someone uploading large files like .isos to distribute their applications eg.linux[*]Other costly business purposes.[/list=A]
As far as normal users are concerned, there shouldn't be options to disable sharing. The excuse that uploading slows downloads is unfounded. It doesn't affect my ultra-slow African dial-up connection, so why should it be an issue in countries with comparatively modern infrastructures? The "leeching phenomenon" seems to be equally spread amongst all users, regardless of connection speed, and is a major issue. I believe the solution lies in prioritising transfers (upload priority to FTP prog for example, then to p2p - like AGSat's 'Bandwidth Throttle' but more refined) & there should be some universal standard for reading 'caps' from either the ISP itself or your OS.
Again the solution is to encourage sharing. It should be transparently complex ie. the program must be so easy to use that complete newbies don't need any other program or even know how to use windows explorer, yet intelligent enough to adapt to any changing conditions. AG is a good example. You need to share 25 songs before you can d/l more than 1 simultaneously. This model should be improved to encourage quality AND quantity, as well as even load distribution.
I think that's a big problem with p2p. I don't see this changing in the forseeable future, as this is the very core design of the system (even to some extent on central-server systems like AG & Filetopia.) I forget which program has the 'karma' system, but this is a step in the right direction. However, a commercial approach is doomed to failure. Perhaps a system where quality-sharers have priority for rare files or zoom to the front of queues. This type of system is also flawed, as "quality" is subjective & quantity is a limited measure of "community worth." Some sort of compromise has to be made, something like DC yet less restrictive and elitist.

I hope I've made my opinions clear. :AF:

I didn't interpret it as offensive. The the reason that I replied to that one comment you made is that I've seen these arguments get pretty ugly in other forums. Most of those arguments only consisted of 56k'ers blaming broadband users and broadband users blaming 56k users. Nothing useful really cames out of those discussions except a hostile divide within the p2p community.

I might have overly pushed my point that not everyone fits into the generalization and stereotypes that are usually voiced so quickly and strongly in this topic. For that I apologize. It's just that I've noticed that usually when these discussions turn into anger they quickly go downhill and lose all usefulness except to vent people's frustrations.

Yes, I agree with that. Currently there is very little that the user can do to better prioritize their bandwidth in a way that will better benefit the community. I have quoted this statement and I've noticed that you have also quoted this statement made by TG below. It basically summons up this whole issue in one brilliantly brief statement (just standard excellence by TG ;))

I guess I should've made this statement a little clearer. Valid reasons are hard to come by. There aren't that many of them and with current p2p technology it's almost impossible to prove if users are lying or not. When I said not to share I didn't mean not to share ever. To not be a leech you do have to share but it has been argued that it doesn't always have to be in a direct straight forward trade manner meaning that if you download you should be uploading at the same time. Some users might share a lot at home and even leave their computers on to act like a server but while at work they can't share because their company prohibits it.

So they have shared or are continuing to share...just not on the same computer. This is a common problem because many companies have fast T1 lines that people like to use for downloading but some type of corporate firewall blocks sharing. The problem is how do we know if this person is actually sharing at home to make up for all the bandwidth that they have taken?

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that. I don't know about other broadband services but with cable (at least my cable modem service) there is a direct and noticable different in speeds depending on how much bandwidth is being used to upload. I believe it's just a weakness in the technology. I've noticed that if I allow my full upload bandwidth to be shared my speeds drop dramatically. I can literally see my download speeds climb when I decrease my upload speeds and the same thing when I go the other way. Although, I haven't tried it I assume that it would be faster or somewhat faster when you don't share at all.

Yes, agreed. I've pretty much have stated something simaliar. I believe that's the best way to reduce the leeching. Maybe it's just me but I think most users respond better to a reward system rather then a harsh punishment or exclusion system.

I agree compromises have to be agreed upon because nothing is perfect. One of the biggest flaw with DC is the huge requirements they enforce. There are a handful of hubs with lower requirments but most of them are out of reach for most users. One of the things that I do like about DC is that they have the ability to kick or ban disruptive users which in itself is good and bad. On the one hand it does keep most users honest for fear of being banned from a great hub, but on the other hand the system is only as fair as the mods/admin who are running it.

TCP/IP transfers (typically used in p2p applications) generate a certain amount - say roughly 10 % - of reverse control traffic that you need to consider to have good download speeds in all circumstances. For example if you download at 30 k/s, you need about 3 k/s upstream for your own downloads. Therefore it makes sense to apply the bandwidth limiter of your p2p application to make sure that some of the upload channel is protected from the free competition of your uploaders.

In case of highly asymmetric lines like cable and satellite the limited upload bandwidth can be a real problem. Let's say your cable allows you 150 k/s downloads but your upload bandwidth is capped at 15 k/s. Should you want to utilize your full download bandwidth you would actually need your whole upload bandwidth for the reverse traffic generated. This is of course an extreme situation and would also require a source that can feed you with such a speed. Anyway, I recommend you to experiment to find a good setting for your dedicated upload bandwidth. Even a 1 k/s difference in the setting can have a drastic effect on your own download speeds in situations where you have heavy uploading going on.

- tg ;)

incredible thread!!!:tu:

just my 2 cents. for i am one of the 56kers, of which u all speak.
i agree with goldenrod..........i would not even attempt to dl a movie. it is a waste of my time and the person in which i would dl.
if any of my speeds drop to 1kb or less, without peaking again, i will disconnect myself.
in the same fashion i get other 56kers, with speeds of .08 kbs and it's like they've walked away from the machine.
i would think, even they would like to get the song a bit faster than that. and all it does it take speed away from my ONE download i may have in progress or take spots from others in queue.
i send messages to no avail.
then it will drop to that 0kbs and they still haven't disconnected themselves.
i will usually disconnect, for there may be others in queue.
yes, in line for my songs, a 56ker.
they more than likely r hoping it is just the setting for 2 or more downloads, but i like giving the people what they want.
heehee:BL:

we also have to remember that the 56ker is of some importance to these "elite", of which goldenrod speaks.
we know that u come to us, when the queues get too much.
u come and download, knowing full well the speed u will get and u stay with us for the whole ride.
i know, cause i get them all the time.
i will then look and lo and behold they r downloading 26 FRIGGIN' songs at once. (yes i envy u)
but this happens at a time when i may be getting a decent speed, by 56k standards of maybe 6kbs, for my ONE download, and then all of a sudden it drops so this dsler can get that 27th song going.
i say NO.
and little old me will disconnect.
if it doesn't interfere with my speed, then fine, i will let it continue.
but come on. 26 songs at once. pah-lease.


i have no choice as to my 56k. i would love to have dsl or cable.
but being a bit out of town, neither comes out this far.
so be nice to us "country" folk, eh?;)
:kiss: :beer:

nice post, nanook

and 2 all i am enjoying this thread (hence my staying out of it as i tend to cause too much trouble not always purposely tho')

:beer:

:tu: to all who've posted their thoughts on this topic so far.

-harbynger

i think, before "banning" users from a p2p net, there are still many options open to make intelligent clients which are able to resolve such differences in bandwidth.

so like FT does it by just dividing a fixed bandwidth by a fixed number of slots isn't really very intelligent and for sure not state of the art. there could be some more dynamic resource allocation anyway.

as for elite at all. of course you can buy junk food with you big pickup in supermarket near the highway en masse and very quick. but maybe this certain delicacy which makes live a pleasure is sold only in the small store in downtown with its narrow lanes, where you can walk on your own feet only :)

An excellent point, Indy, and very true in my experience. There is plenty of mainstream stuff of average or uncertain quality available on the big public networks but if you look for rarer material and quality you may find it better from private, dedicated collectors and small non-public or semi-public groups.

Your vision is very nice - who knows if we will see something similar actually implemented in the p2p software to come. :S:

- tg ;)

Yes, I knew it had to be something like this. I've heard references to it before in other forums, but now hearing it from God herself I mean TG ;) it has more creditbility to others reading this.

I guess I forgot to mention that I've already done that and have adjusted my settings to a pretty good balance between uploads and downloads. Although, the underlining theme in this whole issue is that the users have to adjust their settings more often then they should. It's been mentioned several times in this thread but there needs to be some automated bandwidth control system that the user can adjust manually if need be. Not only is it good for convenience but it will also keep honest people honest.

For example, I do come across those times when 1 k/s difference does mean a lot and it can be tempting to just knock off a couple of k/s in your uploads to speed up your downloads. I'm just jumping to conclusions here but I believe that some users keep pushing this until they end up not sharing anymore.

I like the system that eDonkey uses that limits your download speeds depending how much you upload. Although, it's not a perfect system, but in my opinion it's a step in the right direction. My biggest grip with eDonkey is that its downloading consistency isn't all too great. For example, on FastTrack usually I can get an almost constant download speed whereas on eDonkey it varies a lot and usually stays at 0 k/s for a long time. Anyhow, that's a different issue entirely.

Yes, very good points both of you. I've also experience this first hand myself. I compare the two networks to large brand name companies/large p2p groups vs "mom and pop" stores/small or private p2p groups. For quality and service you have to go to the smaller groups but for a larget selection and more sources you need to go to the larger groups.

For example, if you become a regular in one DC hub you get to know some of the other regulars. When friendships are made you are more willing to help them out and vice versa. An example of this is when you ask the group if they have some file. Even if no one is sharing at the moment some of them have told me that they have it on CD and can put it on their hard drive. Not something most users are willing to do on larger p2p groups. I've also noticed that they are more willing to tell me problems with the files or even recommend others that I might want. Basically, it becomes a community. Users get to see first hand how their good efforts can directly improve the group whereas on larger p2p programs I keep hearing complaints about users uploading 50 k/s only to download .6 k/s. It's not surprising that these users become jaded about helping others.

The large p2p programs are more impersonal like a large brand name store. You go in take what you want and if you are not a rude person you try not to disrupt the environment too much or other "customers" but I've noticed that users don't try to help each others out like they do in smaller groups. You can find a lot files available even good quality but it's a more of a help yourself environment.

Both have their good and bad points and I go to either one depending on what I want at the time.

I didn't consider these 'asynchronous' services (although I've heard of them) as they don't exist here yet. Still, just because you can d/l at those speeds, does that mean you shouldn't share at all just to compensate for your limited upstream? And I understand your point about ppl using p2p at work, but again, should they even be doing this (queuing via AG for home pc might be an exception)? And if ppl are behind firewalls & can't get around it, isn't there a reason for this & should they just leech as a result? To me, these just sound like excuses/situations which are exploited by leechers! I wish I had some of these problems?! Surely there's only so much you can d/l, and from what I understand many broadband services allow you to be online perpetually? Also, I don't believe that the bandwidth controls in current p2p apps are necessarily good. This is another tool exploited by leechers. Right now they are the best solution but, as I stated above, it should be determined transparently by the program. How to do this is beyond me! Although I have no experience in broadband, it seems to me that ISP's don't regulate traffic, even if there are 'caps' or limits in effect. As far as they're concerned : excesses mean bigger bills for their customers/more revenue, so why regulate? The only workaround I can see is that somehow the OS keeps track of a connection, its limitations & its optimal config. If ISP's have anything to say in the matter, it probably won't happen. The problem & advantage with p2p is its anonymity, freedom & cross-platform nature. As soon as big business gets involved (however indirectly) there are obstacles. :MAD:

Please correct me if I'm mistaken in any of these views (remember I have no practical experience with broadband.) :AF: