Gnutella Forums  

Go Back   Gnutella Forums > Current Gnutella Client Forums > LimeWire+WireShare (Cross-platform) > LimeWire Beta Archives
Register FAQ The Twelve Commandments Members List Calendar Arcade Find the Best VPN Today's Posts


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old May 9th, 2003
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: March 21st, 2003
Posts: 141
osu_uma is flying high
Default ultrapeer connects to too many ultrapeers on 2.9.10

I know that more recent versions of limewire accept more ultrapeer connections when running as an ultrapeer.

however, 2.9.10 gives me almost three (3) times as many ultrapeer connections. there seem to be a lot of ultrapeers. considering, how badly ultrapeers do in terms of upload performance, i wonder whether this is a good thing.

also: doesn't such a high ultrapeer density lead to an overly connected network with lots of redundant connections?

lastly: I don't have a single non limewire host. how are we keeping the connection to other vendors?
  #2 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Disciple
 
Join Date: May 10th, 2003
Posts: 11
trap_jaw2 is flying high
Default

LimeWire reduced the outgoing bandwidth limit for ultrapeers in a first step to 8kb/s, so upload performance should not be a major issue. - I think LimeWire could go as low as 5kb/s once traffic compression is activated by default.

As a general rule, the more ultrapeers there are, the lower the bandwidth requirement per ultrapeer.

More ultrapeer connections do not increase the number of redundant connections if you reduce the TTL at the same time. The number of redundant connection is a function of your theoretical network horizon, not of the number of ultrapeer connections.

LimeWire is not very good at keeping connections to other vendors because other vendors do not support this so-called 'high-outdegree network' yet. You can expect that to change with the next BearShare release. The new BearShare betas already connect to LimeWire very well.

And you don't really want good connections to lame GnucDNA client, - because they can mess up your searches. If you search for "the song xy" GnucDNA based clients (Morpheus, Gnucleus, Mynapster) seem return all results containing "the", "song" or "xy" - and that can really hurt you when your ultrapeers will return only so many results and all of them are completely unrelated to what you were searching for because you have a couple of GnucDNA clients in your neighbourhood.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: March 21st, 2003
Posts: 141
osu_uma is flying high
Default

Thanks for the info.

Ultrapeer bandwidth: I was referring to upload of shared files, not messages. Sorry for the confusion. I have about 1/5 of the uploads of what I get when I run as a leaf. My thinking is a high percentage of ultrapeers (read: hosts with reduced file upload capacity) is bad for the network.

Redundant connections: TTL solution makes sense, although it still seems that the higher the number of Ultrapeers, the higher the chance of circles, but I guess there are reasons for more ultrapeers.

GnucDNA: This sucks, there seem to be many, esp. when counting Morpheus. :-(
  #4 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Disciple
 
Join Date: May 10th, 2003
Posts: 11
trap_jaw2 is flying high
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by osu_uma
Ultrapeer bandwidth: I was referring to upload of shared files, not messages. Sorry for the confusion. I have about 1/5 of the uploads of what I get when I run as a leaf. My thinking is a high percentage of ultrapeers (read: hosts with reduced file upload capacity) is bad for the network.
I was talking about the same thing. The number of upload requests should be the same when running as an ultrapeer as when running as a leaf. The only thing that could keep you from uploading is that you have to devote bandwidth to relaying messages. - If you have more ultrapeers the number of relayed messages should remain more or less the same so each ultrapeer would have to relay fewer messages. If there are more ultrapeers but the the upload capacity per ultrapeer is increased, you should not loose anything.

Quote:
GnucDNA: This sucks, there seem to be many, esp. when counting Morpheus. :-(
Morpheus doesn't have that many users anymore. Both BearShare and LimeWire have a lot more users.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: March 21st, 2003
Posts: 141
osu_uma is flying high
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by trap_jaw2
The only thing that could keep you from uploading is that you have to devote bandwidth to relaying messages.
Exactly. That's what it seems to be. Again, this is actual experience, not just me theorizing. And if that's the case, more ultrapeers means less upload bandwidth available in the network.

This could be an isolated exceptional case, but it seems unlikely. I'm on a completely average, normal cable connection.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
et voilà's Avatar
+Modérateur à ses heures+
 
Join Date: July 26th, 2002
Location: Le Québec
Posts: 2,904
et voilà is a great assister to others; your light through the dark tunnel
Default

Normally a good process for ultrapeer selection includes as a paramater the number of files a user is sharing or the average number of uploads. I know Bearshare is doing that, but I nerver heard about it for Limewire (Trap_jaw???). If you are a big sharer, disable the ultrapeer option in preferences.

Oh and an 2.9.x ultrapeer has a hard limit of 8Kb/s of message routing, so even 2.9.10 with 32 connections should route the same amount of message as 16 connections for 2.9.8.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Disciple
 
Join Date: May 10th, 2003
Posts: 11
trap_jaw2 is flying high
Default

Unfortunately LimeWire does not consider the number of shared files when electing ultrapeers. Even worse, a client that never shared a single file can never become an ultrapeer because LimeWire could not confirm that the outgoing bandwidth is sufficient to serve as an ultrapeer.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Gnutella Veteran
 
Join Date: March 21st, 2003
Posts: 141
osu_uma is flying high
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by trap_jaw2
Unfortunately LimeWire does not consider the number of shared files when electing ultrapeers. Even worse, a client that never shared a single file can never become an ultrapeer because LimeWire could not confirm that the outgoing bandwidth is sufficient to serve as an ultrapeer.
that makes it even worse. does the limewire crew know about this issue?
  #9 (permalink)  
Old May 10th, 2003
Disciple
 
Join Date: May 10th, 2003
Posts: 11
trap_jaw2 is flying high
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by osu_uma
that makes it even worse. does the limewire crew know about this issue?
I guess so.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old May 11th, 2003
et voilà's Avatar
+Modérateur à ses heures+
 
Join Date: July 26th, 2002
Location: Le Québec
Posts: 2,904
et voilà is a great assister to others; your light through the dark tunnel
Exclamation

Forced partial file sharing is then the way to go! Leechers will be forced to share at least when downloading videos.... Promoting them to ultrapeer on next startup...
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to get new ultrapeers? mannshands General Windows Support 1 June 4th, 2005 05:03 PM
ultrapeers only osu_uma Connection Problems 9 June 4th, 2003 09:02 PM
How to not get ultrapeers? Unregistered Connection Problems 28 September 20th, 2002 12:49 PM
Ultrapeers and BS Unregistered General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion 1 April 13th, 2002 11:54 AM
15 Ultrapeers on 56K dimagor General Windows Support 0 January 22nd, 2002 08:09 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.