[LorenzoC]

Thanks.

IMHO I don't see any reason to add SOTN or other QUESTIONABLE features to this mod.
ZZul is already pretty good for releasing at it is.
I guess if somebody really need more stuff there are already some "full featured" mods out there.

Edit:
There is something I don't understand about the CA in Analyzzul.
Given these stats:
----------------------------
ClientAnalyzer
Nickthieveries: 2
Modthieveries: 2
File fakes: 3
UDP-FNF fakes: 0
Fast asks: 20
Spams: 1
FastXS: 6

When I look at queued clients I don't see ANY with a reduced "rating", while they are present in the Beba mod.

This post has been edited by LorenzoC: 03 August 2008 - 11:31 AM

[Tuxman]

No skulls present or no reduced ratings in the AntiLeech Info field?

[LorenzoC]

There is only ONE skull icon and NO reduced rating. ALL clients have got 100 rating. I am getting more "hits" in the CA stats and in the log but nothing happens in the queue clients list. It looks like either the hits are not present in the queue or the CA is not having any effect on queue clients.

This post has been edited by LorenzoC: 03 August 2008 - 12:22 PM

[Tuxman]

AnalyZZUL uses a different score calculation method (by CiccioBastardo), maybe that's why the "rating" differs... a quick check via WinMerge didn't show me any differences in the actual CA implementation, however...
Maybe I'm just blind, but I don't have a clue so far...



Did you do a "clean installation"?

[LorenzoC]

What do you think? I may be not that smart but am not that noob either.
I am comparing mods in their own separate directories.
What puzzles me, like said above, is I can see CA entries in the log and in the stats but there is not sign of it in the queue clients list. You should better try it yourself, it should take few minutes to collect some CA hit examples. Whatever the rating calculation is, it makes no sense when ALL clients have the same 100 rating and when there aren't any (visible) CA-reduced clients.

This post has been edited by LorenzoC: 03 August 2008 - 01:14 PM

[Tuxman]

No clients found yet... I'll let it run for a while now... maybe I'll find the cause, but currently I can't find the matching code failure...

[LorenzoC]

Any news?

[Tuxman]

I got the issue now, but I don't have any idea why it happens...

[once375ml]

Will the dots in downloading progress bar be removed ?

When the downloading file is big (larger than 1G), the dots look horrible

[Tuxman]

-removed-

This post has been edited by Tuxman: 08 August 2008 - 02:28 PM

[CiccioBastardo]

Tux,
you can have a look at BastarD code. I've added 2 lines of checks to see if dots have to be drawn or not. Easy patch

[Tuxman]

Thanks for the hint.
I don't know yet... maybe some time...

[once375ml]

CiccioBastardo, on Aug 6 2008, 05:40 AM, said:

Tux,
you can have a look at BastarD code. I've added 2 lines of checks to see if dots have to be drawn or not. Easy patch

A well-done mod
That is what i am talking about

[Tuxman]

I obviously found the Client Analyzer problem:



It was "fixed" by recompiling.
I released a v2.1, though, covering the proposed "dots fix" respectively improvement...

[LorenzoC]

Great, powersharing.

[Januar1956]

BIG THX

for your work!


Januar Mirror is updated.


Januar

[LorenzoC]

Question: any idea on the reason why Analyzzul needs almost the double of the RAM compared to the plain Zzul with exactly the same configuration?

Could it be the SUQWT + CA?

This post has been edited by LorenzoC: 08 August 2008 - 06:59 PM

[Tuxman]

Could be, indeed, preferably with long queues...

This post has been edited by Tuxman: 08 August 2008 - 07:15 PM

[LorenzoC]

Mmm... I don't know, I am seeing both Beba and Zzul using about 20M of RAM and Analyzzul going above 40M.
(same file set for all, same config for zzul and analyzzul).

Edit: It is always difficult to understand where the memory goes with Emule but it seems to me that Analyzzul leaks a little. I could be wrong of course, but it keeps increasing, now I am above 50M and counting.

This post has been edited by LorenzoC: 08 August 2008 - 08:49 PM

[aSceT]

Quote

IMPV | Tuxman | removed some bans (we have CA instead)

Tuxman, could you elaborate on this, please? You removed bans of official client? If yes, then what bans exactly? Frankly, IMHO, this is not good idea - bans and CS are pretty separate things, so if certain bannings were approved and implemented in official client, it's better to leave them in place, regardless the CS used...