[pepe0008]

Dick_Manitoba, on Sep 23 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Amazing... Register two accounts, and use one of them exclusively to bypass the rules. If it gets deleted, no big deal, register another rule abusing acct, leaving your "safe" account untouched....

Not so amazing, considering his impressive IQ of 158...

ROTFLMAO

[Nissenice]

pepe0008, on Sep 23 2007, 09:22 AM, said:

Dick_Manitoba, on Sep 23 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

Amazing... Register two accounts, and use one of them exclusively to bypass the rules. If it gets deleted, no big deal, register another rule abusing acct, leaving your "safe" account untouched....

Not so amazing, considering his impressive IQ of 158...

He seem to be quite obssesed with it!!


Btw, I find this test much funnier these days.

[Nissenice]

reported for doubleposting.

[leuk_he]

It is closed source, but me and some other modders (and possibly Kry & some official devs, if they do they have to report themelf) have read-only access to the source. SO far i see no ugly backdoors or IFPI involvement in the C++ version of the server. So this server is almost certainly not evil, but it might have to go some more time before it has the performance & stability of lundugum server (where nobody got access to...)

IF you have some big internet pipe (1Mb up for 1000 users version i guess) & server (modern cpu on linux or win32) this software can run on please contact these guys (there mail is on their homepage). Consider this software experimental though!

[Sam Hamwich]

Now I'm getting this:

"Set of local addresses (x.x.x.x) and port 4665 failed !
UDP THREAD TERMINATED, SHUTTING DOWN SYSTEM"

Any reason why?

[satanedonkeyserver]

Sam Hamwich, on Sep 23 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Now I'm getting this:
"Set of local addresses (x.x.x.x) and port 4665 failed !
UDP THREAD TERMINATED, SHUTTING DOWN SYSTEM"
Any reason why?

If the server cannot bind to the TCP or UPD-Port at startup-time this will displayed and the server stops starting up.

This is the case if:

a any other program is using this upd/tcp-port
b another program died before using this ports and the operation system does not freed the ports form the binding.
( After a short period of time it should be freed )
c your Networking-layer of your operating system has some serious problems.....
d you used an ip-adress which does not exit on your system ....

Normally b or d is the case .....

This post has been edited by satanedonkeyserver: 23 September 2007 - 05:57 PM

[Sam Hamwich]

satanedonkeyserver, on Sep 23 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

Sam Hamwich, on Sep 23 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

Now I'm getting this:
"Set of local addresses (x.x.x.x) and port 4665 failed !
UDP THREAD TERMINATED, SHUTTING DOWN SYSTEM"
Any reason why?

If the server cannot bind to the TCP or UPD-Port at startup-time this will displayed and the server stops starting up.

This is the case if:

a) any other program is using this upd/tcp-port
another program died before using this ports and the operation system does not freed the ports form the binding. (After a short period of
time it schould be freed
c) your Networkinglayer of your operatingsystem has some serious problems
d) you used an ip-adress which does not exit on your system ....

Normally or d) is the case .....

Makes sense. I did have Eserver 17.13 running previously on the same ports, but I had to shut it down because of diminishing overhead. The program may have locked the ports. I'll try a reboot and see it that clears them. I also have several IP addresses which may have caused a problem, but I usually use the WAN (PPP/SLiP) interface for network connections. If all else fails, I'll try a re-install of the server.

[Sam Hamwich]

Okay, found the problem. Running EServer created a connection with similar servers and caused a data flow between my computer and their clients. I exited the DOS console which terminated the server, but data continued to be received from those sources via UDP Port 4661 and locked it from access. Readout: <non-existent>:2652 UDP MyComputer:4665 *:* .
Non-Existent being the EServer now off-line. I suppose this will continue until reboot or clients finally decide that the server is dead. I just chose another port for Satan server and it ran fine (except for the afore mentioned CDT's)

This post has been edited by Sam Hamwich: 23 September 2007 - 08:58 PM

[xylo9]

Why the evil name... "satan"... ? Come on. No very stylish at all.

[emuling emuler]

These clowns are trying to hard to make people believe that they want to help the eMule community. Their refusal to convert their project to open source combined with the timing of their arrival should be enough to show people that there is something not right with them.

[Sam Hamwich]

I think I may have discovered the cause of the CTD's. I found that when I tried to reconnect to my server in the Emule serverlist while still connected it caused a CTD. I assume that this would occur if any connected client attempted a second connect.

[PacoBell]

emuling emuler, on Sep 23 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

These clowns are trying to hard to make people believe that they want to help the eMule community.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please do not resort to ad-hominems to make your point. Such tactics only damage your own credibility and reveal your prejudices. Moreover, it's a violation of Forum Rule #3, so just stick to the relevant facts at hand. Thanks.

[Sam Hamwich]

PacoBell, on Sep 24 2007, 05:04 PM, said:

emuling emuler, on Sep 23 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

These clowns are trying to hard to make people believe that they want to help the eMule community.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please do not resort to ad-hominems to make your point. Such tactics only damage your own credibility and reveal your prejudices. Moreover, it's a violation of Forum Rule #3, so just stick to the relevant facts at hand. Thanks.

Thank you! Yes, let's leave politics out of this discussion and focus on the original subject. I am eagarly awaiting the debug version of this program to do further testing. I am currently running Eserver 17.13 for Win32 and find that I quickly run out of buffer space and port sockets with even a small configuraton (5000 User). If Satan can optimize these and resolve other memory and hardware related issues, it will be a boon to personal computer owners who want to run a server with limited resources.

[pepe0008]

Sam Hamwich, on Sep 29 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

I am currently running Eserver 17.13 for Win32 and find that I quickly run out of buffer space and port sockets with even a small configuraton (5000 User). If Satan can optimize these and resolve other memory and hardware related issues, it will be a boon to personal computer owners who want to run a server with limited resources.

I have not looked inside Satan's source code (nor do I have the time to dwelve into it, and much less the specific eD2k protocol knowledge to do so, etc.), but please consider Lugdunum's eServer had to be written from scratch in pure C to overcome the original MetaMachine dServer's C++ code scalability problems. Scalability problems like acomodating into memory one million eD2k users and their associated file indexes, etc.

Therefore, from a pure theoretical point of view, it is doubtful that a C++ version (also available in Java) could ever be more optimized than Lugdunum's refined C implementation of the eD2k server.

IMBW (I might be wrong), YMMV. lala-lala-lala.

[Sam Hamwich]

Remember the Commodore-64 and what was accomplished by programmers using 64k of memory? Anything is possible, as long as you consider it probable..

[Firnus]

emuling emuler, on Sep 24 2007, 03:32 AM, said:

Their refusal to convert their project to open source

lugdunum server aren't open-source. And lug refuse to put it on open-source.

Then don't connect to lugdunum server.

[lugdunummaster]

Quote

Thank you! Yes, let's leave politics out of this discussion and focus on the original subject. I am eagarly awaiting the debug version of this program to do further testing. I am currently running Eserver 17.13 for Win32 and find that I quickly run out of buffer space and port sockets with even a small configuraton (5000 User). If Satan can optimize these and resolve other memory and hardware related issues, it will be a boon to personal computer owners who want to run a server with limited resources.

You cannot run a server with limited resources.

Prereq are large, because even if your server has 'only 5000' users, about 5.000.000 other users knows your server and send it many UDP frames.

(about 10.000 per second)

Even with 0 users on your server, your litle machine wont cope the load. Forget about small servers. Forget about windows and learn linux

[Some Support]

Offtopic posts have been removed, posters feel yourself asked to not go offtopic.

[lugdunummaster]

Quote

Regardless, I still want to try your software and monitor the results. Thanks for the info

I am glad I found a beta tester for last version

http://lugdunum2k.fr....i686-win32.exe

Have fun

This post has been edited by lugdunummaster: 30 September 2007 - 06:17 PM

[aachen]

is possible host emule server in windows?