I've been having some trouble uploading to Shareaza users. Specifically Shareaza 1.8.9.22 - the request lands in the queue, and it fails. For downloads I similarly have trouble--I will land in the queue, stay there for hours as the number slowly goes down, and then fail to connect. (If I'm queued by a Limewire user, I almost always connect.)

I'v successfully uploaded hundreds of files to Limewire, Acquisition, Bearshare, giFT-Gnutella, gtk-gnutella, and Morpheus users, but I seem to have trouble connecting with Shareaza. Anyone know why this might be?

It seems like Shareaza's queue works a bit differently from the other clients'.

I realize there are often problems with individual user's setups, but there seems to be a pattern--or maybe I'm just nuts.

It's speculation on my part, but from what I've observed uploads that have been queued but that are now eligible to start transferring data are removed if they don't start after a minute or so. That is to say, the empty upload slot is held for about a minute. If the client at the head of the queue doesn't start using it during that time period, they lose their chance.

I wonder if Shareaza has problems with time-management at its end, causing it to sometimes miss it's window of opportunity to start downloading data ?

It's possible. (BTW, want to add that I've successfully uploaded to Gnucleus users as well.)

It's hard to tell what's going on from the monitoring window. That could be exactly what's happening, I don't know.

On the flip side, sometimes in trying to download from Shareaza I'll get the "connecting" message for about 30 seconds, and then it will say "Needs more sources." My ability to download from Shareaza seems to be very hit or miss.

I thought if a transfer was queued, that meant a connection was made and transfer was possible, unless one or both hosts dropped off the network. That was a guess, though--I don't understand much of the technical aspects. Shareaza seems to use a sort of "virtual" queue because they queue up to 2000 transfers--these couldn't possibly be all pointing to the same host.

Can anybody shed some light on this issue?