There is a definite problem with 2.9.8. From the moment I updated, 95% of downloads result in a 'Could not Download' message. Everything used to work very well, now it doesn't. Nothing else changed on my machine, running OSX 10.2.4. Anyone know where to get an older version of software?

Hi

For what it's worth, my money says you were just lucky before. From my view of the system, there has been no substantive change in the means of performance as we adopted each new upgrade. The developers are merely tinkering with the package, making small incremental amendments rather than major amendments. I have only averaged about a 5% success rate of attempted connections but, once connected, I have worked to achieve a high download success rate since adopting LW. I am content with life under the current 2.9.8 on OSX 10.2.4 and would see little point in going back to an earlier version. In earlier threads, I have seen references to addresses for ealier versions. If you are determined to step back, browse through the back catalogue of advice.

Luck? Hah! Look around these forums my friend and you will see many MANY people are having problems with 2.9.8. I've been using LW for over a year with excellent results, I was certainly maintaining far better than your reported 5% connection success before this version. If you asked me to guess, I would say more like 25%. I almost never had a download attempt fail once commmenced, and the connections would remain stable and available for many many hours. Many downloads later, I was astonished how well it worked. But with no major OS changes (although perhaps it may have something to do with Apple's latest Java update?), something definitely broke in 2.9.8. The problem is definitely associated with connection reliability and duration - hosts rarely seem to hang around for longer than maybe 20 seconds now.

Most of the download problems I'm seeing here seem to be psychological. It was the same with uploads and downloads going into the "Connecting..." mode every 100k. People came here and complained their connections weren't stable (although the tcp connection was kept alive all the time).

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

I too just updated to v2.9.8 I've only had 1 successful download. Everything else is could not download. I quess its true when they say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Some help would be appreciated.

I have only been using LW for two months. I have not enjoyed your Indian Summer of easy downloads. For me, a 5% success rate for connection (not downloads) is normal. So let us take your perception as correct (despite trap_laws' defensive dismissal) and ask what has changed. As I understand it, more people with excess bandwidth are now serving as ultrapeers through default. This has applied to me for the last week since upgrading to 2.9.8.

I have casually monitored the connect volumes and, rather than see highly stable traffic, I have found it fluctuating wildly. Why should that be? Although I work on my machine for long periods of time (LW operation does not survive sleep), I have the impression that a reasonably high percentage of users are transient. If even a small percentage of the ultrapeer network are casual, this must be highly disruptive to the routing system of the whole network. Further, I have found that my LW crashes on a fairly regular basis in ultrapeer mode. I suspect that there is a memory problem that slowly builds to a saturation point during each on-line session.

I speculate that the increase in poor connectivity and lost downlaods that you have remarked is due to traffic disruption as a higher percentage of the ultrapeer system is distributed among less stable ultrapeer hosts. It must be a balancing act for the designers/developers. The network cannot grow unless there are sufficient ultrapeers. That some of the new ultrapeers are transient is the price to be paid for overall p2p growth.

My apologies if my speculation is rubbish but I am only slowly coming to understand what may be going on and would value your opinion so that we may all learn.

boy, am i glad i decided to take a look around here. i thought it was strange that after i successfully downloaded and installed the upgrade (v 2.9.8), i started having this problem. a file would connect and begin to download and stop with the 'status' of 'Could Not Download; Awaiting Source ...'.
if i quit, re-launch, and re-search ... i can start the process all over again, sometimes it completes, and sometimes it doesn't. i have to say that i shooting about 10% (if that).
i placed a 'bug report' ... anyone else?
i'm running mac 10.2.5, i don't think it's just an os x issue.
i'm just glad to know that i'm not the only one. thank you to those of you who post.
do you think the last version is floating around the network?
peace.

Anybody else seeing "could not move to library"? This was an old issue, but I'm seeing too many since the 10.2.5 upgrade. I reparired permissions several times, and noted some "temp" directory getting more attention.

Does LW use temp directories before the chunks are written to the incomplete folder, and might a timeout be involved in the process of downloading and writing the chunks that's triggering the error messages?

I'm pretty busy right now--can anyone suggest how we can test for this? There are so many variables, but there does seem to be an OSX problem here.

LimeWire does not use another directory for temporary files besides the "Incomplete" directory.

If there was an error writing the chunks LimeWire won't show a "Couldn't Move To Library" error. This error will be shown, if the incomplete file could not be created in the "Incomplete" directory, if LimeWire could not move the completed file to the shared directory or if the incomplete file could not be opened.

There are no timeouts when writing the file.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

Thanks. Makes sense. Probably just a bad source. Any suggestions for clearing whatever sources LW has built up, and avoiding getting new ones? I guess I could ungroup results and block all older clients.

I don't know how OSX handles files in d/l progress, so if LW doesn't use temps, maybe the OS interferes. Most apps I install use the OSX installer, and they usually asks for admin perms before installing.