I have been working on a partial filesharing patch for a couple of weeks. It's basically ready to be implemented any time, but I still have to write unit tests (which is very tedious, so I'm not very motivated) and move some code because the LimeWire developers chose to remove some classes I was depending on last week.

congrats trap_jaw--hope all your work to help the efficiency of gnutella is appreciated.

Re too many ultrapeers, a few quick checks yesterday showed better results connected to 3 hosts as a legitimate leaf than when connected to 32 hosts as a "false leaf." (by disabling Ultrapeer when connected initially as ultrapeer).

et voilà--how are you able to maintain a connection as an Ultrapeer? You're on OSX and a router, right? Every time I try to connect as an Ultrapeer, the hosts build up to ~40-50, and when 10 or more can't resolve the IP within 30 seconds, I lose all connections and internet access. I'd hoped this was a java problem, but looks like Acq users still have "router saturation"

Maybe if LW would add Ultrapeers slowly enough for the DNS lookups?

re: Stief
You're correct I'm behind a router and most of the time I use os X. However I've fowarded the gnutella port + I have forced IP. Also, note that my router is a Linksys with the latest firmware, which is a big factor IMO. It is true that a router can be easily satured by lots of incoming connections, I think that cheap routers don't have enough memory to keep the pace of connections.
It does a long time since I haven't been an UP because I prefer share my rare stuff on the 160kb/s sympatico upload speed...
I'll do more tests and be right back.

I've been UP for over 15 minutes now and no problems: I have 62-64 current hosts like it should be, I have over 4000 total hosts, and no problems. In fact it is much better with 2.9.10 then in the 2.1-2.8 series. I'm not dropping hosts like I used to and the bandwidth usage is low both up and down (+/- 9Kb/s up and down). It may be that low because I've enabled traffic compression up and down. I wonder when Limewire will be compression by default, because it saves approximatly 50% of bandwith. Now for the record my processor usage is around 40% for an iMac DV 400 overclocked to 450, so it is low. So far no problems or downsides....

just curious: how much do you upload compared to when you run as a leaf?

you run OSX on a G3 450 as an ultrapeer? I didn't know they were fast enough forr that.

> I wonder when Limewire will be compression by default, because it saves approximatly 50% of bandwith

we're waiting till a large portion of clients support it, so we can better test the CPU impact and determine if there needs to be limits on the amount of concurrently compressed connections. if we see it's not a problem, then it's just a matter of changing one word in one file from 'false' to 'true'. if it is, we'll put some sort of limit on the number of compressed connections a client will try to maintain at one time.

on my measly 500mhz p3, the 'row striping' is more of a CPU hog than compression is, so i doubt it'll be too much of a problem.

à Osu_uma:
I wasn't sharing files when I was UP, but if I had uploads, they would have gone at 7Kb/s instead of 17Kb/s, and they would have interfered with the ultrapeer traffic (packets filtered.. etc..) which is not good for Gnet. My lowly 450 is powerful enough, it runs 5 web sites on the dsl connection, plus it does run many things at once, I can't complain (no UT2003 damnit!).

Merci et voilà --tried posting within a few minutes of your results, but the site was down. 64 hosts, eh! I wrongly thought 32 was the norm. So no problem resolving the IP's. Hmmm. 10BaseT Ethernet, or did you set up for the 100?

it's my NAT software, then (an old Mac IIci running IPNetRouter68K software), which has worked well for four years, but not good enough for gnutella I guess. The family has been bugging me for AirPort, but casual research tells me it's just as bad. More reading needed. And yeah, 6346 mapped, IP forced (if only 1 client active), quick check of upload bandwidth : 592709 bps, or 592 kbps. Haven't seen any problems with CPU and memory % on my 700 G3 (10.2.6) with the recent 2.9's.

Neat about the compression. With both up and down allowed, 50% savings here too for messages. Kept watching for 2.9.10 up or downloads just in case someone had the HTTP compression enabled. Does seem very promising (and maybe the first step to encrypted packet-shaping?).

Still, if 50% of gnutella users are behind all sorts of routers, maybe LW could filter/throttle incoming connections to get around saturating older and less efficient routers. As a leaf, LW seems to try three at a time, but as an UP, connections seem to try in blocks of 10. My router can add blocks of 3 fairly smoothly, but not 10.

osu_uma-- and others-- any suggestions about becoming Ultrapeers with routers?

steif: would be interesting to know what the process is that makes a host into an ultrapeer.

my completely unrepresentative observation is: normally, limewire starts as a leaf. if I have it running for quite some time (like, a day or so), and quit, and restart it, it starts as an ultrapeer and usually remains an ultrapeer. it seems like the longer the downtime in between, the less likely it will start as ultrapeer again or it will drop back to leaf.

it tends to drop back to leaf if there are not enough connections after a while.

generally speaking, continuity is the key.

I am behind a router, ports forwarded, cable, with rare IP changes.

osu_uma--I don't know how to read the code that decides the criteria for UP, but do know quitting and restarting isn't necessary: just use File->Disconnect; File->Connect (with Preferences->Disable Ultrapeer UNchecked). This doesn't seem to affect current uploads or downloads.

Even the uptime isn't as much of a factor as expected. After a completely clean install (even a new IP last week), I only had to run for a couple of hours before this worked. If after a couple times when all hosts built up and dropped too low, I'd change the Pref on the go once about 6 connected (vendors showed and IP's resolved into named sources). This would allow LW to operate as a "false leaf", building up to about 32-35 Ultrapeer hosts in ~10 minutes. I just tested this again successfully within minutes of starting up LW once I got home.

Did you map 6346 as TCP only, or TCP and UDP? I currently map for "All"6346. The OSX firewall just says 6346, so I'm guessing it means UDP, TCP, and others.

Does dropping hosts relate (cause or correlation?) to the displayof the vendor info and the dotted IP resolving into a named IP for you too?