multiple network access stay or go?? - P2P-Zone

AweShucks · 31-03-02, 11:40 AM

After trying several programs that offer multiple network access I have to wonder.....Is it all that great?
Best example is WinMX. Access to opennap and its PNP seems to have done little but increase queueing. Not on just the PNP but on opennap also. Do we really need multiple access when protocals like the PNP or Fastrack are more than self supporting alone?? But taking and not giving anything back I feel is a bit on the selfish side of things.
I understand that we all want files and good search results but is this idea actually doing anything besides increasing queue time?? At one time "just after that one network died.. Nap something" I justified multiple access as did many others because the state of filesharing was a little unorganized. But is multi access a must have anymore?.... and would we be better off without it on Networks that have a good userbase already?.....

napho · 31-03-02, 03:12 PM

I think it's mostly overkill. We don't need 9000 results on WinMX when PNP can deliver 1800 by itself, but as long as the opennaps appear to be thriving I guess no harm done.

btw I just discovered an AudioGnome forum with the name AweShucks all over it. Any relation?

AweShucks · 31-03-02, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by napho

btw I just discovered an AudioGnome forum with the name AweShucks all over it. Any relation?

Kinda slow there at times but it is alive

JackSpratts · 31-03-02, 06:13 PM

an opennap is perfect for a small group of "insider traders" using the winmx client as the engine.

it doesn't work all that well when lots users "discover" it.

- js.

AweShucks · 31-03-02, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JackSpratts
an opennap is perfect for a small group of "insider traders" using the winmx client as the engine.

it doesn't work all that well when lots users "discover" it.

- js.

When you get some fool that feels he needs to connect to the PNP and 50+ opennap servers as well

Doing so will give you well in excess of 60,000 users on opennap. Hardly an insider group

But this I feel is where alot of the remote queue issues come from on the PNP. Sharing of the queue between networks is bound to lead to issues sometime.

zombywoof · 31-03-02, 09:56 PM

I've never had problems running opennap with PNP so I like it better that both options are available.

thinker · 01-04-02, 11:14 AM

There are still a lot of things that one can find just about only on OpenNap - certain classical pieces, as well as various bootlegs. I've found that when only using the PNP I don't find nearly as much in those areas.

AweShucks · 01-04-02, 06:07 PM

I agree it is a great tool for finding rare hard to find files. But not all that necessary for popular everyday files. I used Winmx as an example because it is popular and I read alot of comments about the amount of remote queues. I was hoping for a little more of a technical discussion. Opennap isn't a real good example I guess.

Sooo.... lets discuss gnutella and programs like Filenavigator. We all know Gnutella uses alot of bandwidth to route traffic. Now with Filenavigator you have access to 3 networks two of which require the user to route traffic. Gnutella and Filenav P2P.... Now consider the amount of bandwidth it takes to route traffic for both networks

Now figure your sharing 10 upload slots in your queue connected to 10+ opennap servers, Filenavs P2P, and Gnutella. Not to mention the amount of Downloads you may have going!! One can't help but notice this is going to drastically slow down not only transfer rates but traffic routing and increase remote queues

In the end all we are doing is slowing down perfectly good "fast" independant networks with our need for more files in less time. Kinda defeating our own selves in the end.

31-03-02, 11:40 AM	#1
AweShucks Just Looking Around Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Right here!!! Posts: 341	multiple network access stay or go?? After trying several programs that offer multiple network access I have to wonder.....Is it all that great? Best example is WinMX. Access to opennap and its PNP seems to have done little but increase queueing. Not on just the PNP but on opennap also. Do we really need multiple access when protocals like the PNP or Fastrack are more than self supporting alone?? But taking and not giving anything back I feel is a bit on the selfish side of things. I understand that we all want files and good search results but is this idea actually doing anything besides increasing queue time?? At one time "just after that one network died.. Nap something" I justified multiple access as did many others because the state of filesharing was a little unorganized. But is multi access a must have anymore?.... and would we be better off without it on Networks that have a good userbase already?.....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

31-03-02, 03:12 PM	#2
napho Dawn's private genie Join Date: May 2001 Location: the Canadian wasteland Posts: 4,461	I think it's mostly overkill. We don't need 9000 results on WinMX when PNP can deliver 1800 by itself, but as long as the opennaps appear to be thriving I guess no harm done. btw I just discovered an AudioGnome forum with the name AweShucks all over it. Any relation?

31-03-02, 06:13 PM	#4
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,017	an opennap is perfect for a small group of "insider traders" using the winmx client as the engine. it doesn't work all that well when lots users "discover" it. - js.

31-03-02, 09:56 PM	#6
zombywoof Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 2,160	I've never had problems running opennap with PNP so I like it better that both options are available.

01-04-02, 11:14 AM	#7
thinker Ex-Singular Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Earth Posts: 4,677	There are still a lot of things that one can find just about only on OpenNap - certain classical pieces, as well as various bootlegs. I've found that when only using the PNP I don't find nearly as much in those areas.

01-04-02, 06:07 PM	#8
AweShucks Just Looking Around Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Right here!!! Posts: 341	I agree it is a great tool for finding rare hard to find files. But not all that necessary for popular everyday files. I used Winmx as an example because it is popular and I read alot of comments about the amount of remote queues. I was hoping for a little more of a technical discussion. Opennap isn't a real good example I guess. Sooo.... lets discuss gnutella and programs like Filenavigator. We all know Gnutella uses alot of bandwidth to route traffic. Now with Filenavigator you have access to 3 networks two of which require the user to route traffic. Gnutella and Filenav P2P.... Now consider the amount of bandwidth it takes to route traffic for both networks Now figure your sharing 10 upload slots in your queue connected to 10+ opennap servers, Filenavs P2P, and Gnutella. Not to mention the amount of Downloads you may have going!! One can't help but notice this is going to drastically slow down not only transfer rates but traffic routing and increase remote queues In the end all we are doing is slowing down perfectly good "fast" independant networks with our need for more files in less time. Kinda defeating our own selves in the end.