Official eMule-Board: Feature: Zz Transferratiobalance - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Feature: Zz Transferratiobalance Session ratio. More flexible limiting of download speed

#41 User is offline   chazz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 23-August 04

Posted 07 December 2005 - 12:48 AM

Hi! I'm using Armadillo and was thinking, that i should post it actually here.

I got to the 1:3 rato and my download did go nuts :) It was jumping up and down and actual rato (after 25h) was 1:4.4 .

Looking at the download graphics i was thinking, that would it not be better to actually try to limit the download to more stable number, to achieve 1:3 ratio?

If the session ratio is reached, then limit the download to U:D 1:2. After user has gone below 1:3 the download is increased until it has almost steady 1:3. At the moment i got really the feeling that the downlaods are stuck because of this limitation. They continue randomly :)

Other idea was that if download limit is applyed, it would be nicer, if the download of lower level files will be stopped. That way the user would have some kind of control over his downloads and still gets punished. If all files have the same priority, then random files will be stopped.

I think that 1:3 is actually a good feature (and cumulative 1:2 would be good) and the only reason, why i got the limit was, that i had some too popular files on download, when switched to Armadillo :P

/chazz
0

#42 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 07 December 2005 - 07:25 AM

I may try to have a look at the zzRatio implementation, though it would be better if such a thing is done by Master zz himself ;)

And you meant a global ratio of 1:1, did you?

You should post a high resolution screenshot of the statistics graph, so that the behaviour can be better analysed. I have personally never seen such a situation (they should really be very popoular files! ;))
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#43 User is offline   chazz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 23-August 04

Posted 07 December 2005 - 09:13 AM

CiccioBastardo, on Dec 7 2005, 10:25 AM, said:

And you meant a global ratio of 1:1, did you?
View Post


:-k 1:1.5? At the moment I have 1:1.16 after running 250 days. Had positive ratio some time ago, but things got a bit out of hand :) Working at the moment (after current downloads have ended) on 1.20:1 ratio :+1:


CiccioBastardo, on Dec 7 2005, 10:25 AM, said:

You should post a high resolution screenshot of the statistics graph, so that the behaviour can be better analysed. I have personally never seen such a situation (they should really be very popoular files! ;))
View Post


At the moment ratio is nice 1:3, but added some random files for test purpoce. I'll make the screen in evening. It looks like the download starts jumping, if there are many active downloads. That is actually logical, if 100kB download is limited to 1kB. At the moment also had some spikes, but over longer period of time.

/chazz
0

#44 User is offline   zz 

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Debugger
  • Posts: 2,014
  • Joined: 30-November 02

Posted 07 December 2005 - 09:39 AM

I use the official code to limit the speeds in the individual downloads (the actual decision if it should be limited is just done in another way before that code is called).

That standard official looks fine when I look at it but there are some cases where it doesn't seem to work exactly right. For instance, there's also been reports on the download speed not allowed to actually reach the dl limit set in prefs, and I think under some rare circumstances it doesn't limit completely (for really slow dl speeds in each socket).

A tester helped me do some runtime runs to verify this behavior (the numbers says it's there), but I haven't been able to figure out a fix for it (those test runs were with the official version, probably 0.45 iirc).

/zz B)
ZZUL - get control of your uploads: ZZUL Forum
0

#45 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,548
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 07 December 2005 - 10:32 AM

I don't like your "ZZ ratio" feature because you still allow to get around the ratio limit if no clients are in queue and though the limiters might get "crazy"...
The ratiocode of SF or Netfinity seem to perform better while limiting the speed of the clients - maybe you should try them out :flowers:
0

#46 User is offline   chazz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 23-August 04

Posted 07 December 2005 - 12:32 PM

Screeny:

Posted Image

/chazz
0

#47 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 07 December 2005 - 07:02 PM

You didn't post the upload speed, but from the pic you sent it should be very very low, I guess.
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#48 User is offline   coluche 

  • hm ?
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,232
  • Joined: 02-May 05

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:04 AM

Hej Chazz,
I wasn't able to see what is the time-scale in your screenshot ? If one "cm" represents only few seconds, than the picture seems normal to me when being on zzulratio.

The ratio works fine over here and yes it's a bit annoying when the one download that only get's a little bit once a week is the one that get's "ratioed", but so what?

What I like also about the 1:3 sessionratio is that it makes the cumulative ratio limit at 1:2 or something. (this session hits the ratio, next doesn't, next session without DL at all...)

My experience is, that when beginning with emule and feeling such a lot of downloadneeds, I ended up with a very bad up/down-ratio. But with time and most needs fullfilled, my cumulative ratio tends to go down more and more.
( from 1:4,something to now 1:1.84 )
Don't You think this may be the more or less general tendency with most users?

coluche
It's Screamin' Jay Hawkins and he's a Wild Man, so bug off!
0

#49 User is offline   chazz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 23-August 04

Posted 08 December 2005 - 08:04 AM

CiccioBastardo, on Dec 7 2005, 10:02 PM, said:

You didn't post the upload speed, but from the pic you sent it should be very very low, I guess.
View Post


Upload limit is 25kB. USS enabled with 20kB minimum up. So it jumps between 20 and 23.

Edit: between 18 and 23

coluche, on Dec 8 2005, 09:04 AM, said:

Hej Chazz,
.....
View Post


Yeah, discovered eMule yesterday. Thanks! Now i see :P

The reason for reporting the behaviour was that (as you can see) after some time ratio goes over 1:3 and this is alsowhen everything goes crazy :) When the limit is first reached, the graphics line is steady and you actually can't see see the differents on download side.

And once again - if i had not restarted the client, i would have never reached the ratio. Or even got near it :P And it is going OT :)

/chazz

This post has been edited by chazz: 08 December 2005 - 08:07 AM

0

#50 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 08 December 2005 - 09:56 AM

I tried the thing myself this night, and I could see, with an upload speed of 4, that the graph was very similar to chazz's one.
And I have a ratio 1:3:89. When I raised the upload to 8, slowly everything went OK (now ratio is 1:2.58)

There's something wrong with the way the throttling is done when the zzRatio is reached, IMHO.
I'll try to have a look, but for zz it may be easier to find the problem ;)
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#51 User is offline   zz 

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Debugger
  • Posts: 2,014
  • Joined: 30-November 02

Posted 08 December 2005 - 04:31 PM

I don't think it's a real problem. You "shouldn't" reach the limit anyway. :P If the cosmetics bother you, lower your dl limit to a value that makes you not hit the roof. :)

/zz B)
ZZUL - get control of your uploads: ZZUL Forum
0

#52 User is offline   chazz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 23-August 04

Posted 08 December 2005 - 05:03 PM

OK :D Last screeny:

Posted Image

As you can see, the ratio works until something happens. For me it does not looks like cosmetics, but it relly does not bother me also :D

Anyway - keep up the good work :+1:

/chazz
0

#53 User is offline   TrainOfDeath 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 15 September 2006 - 06:43 PM

@ zz

THX 4 your mod !

I tested it today the first time.

But i have problems with the ratio.

i've got 2000kb down and 100kb upstream with both unlimited in emule.

i reach the ratio after 15 minutes!

is it possible, to make no ratio for all, who have unlimited up and downstream?

TrainOfDeath
user posted image
0

#54 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 15 September 2006 - 07:51 PM

Of course not. What would be the advantage for the network doing that?
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#55 User is offline   Eibwen 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 04-January 04

Posted 16 September 2008 - 01:00 AM

I think this should take into account Cumulative Ratio as well, possibly including the data amount.
I just upgraded recently, hadn't been using emule much for the last month, and wanted to get some files. So i'm queuing up stuff and notice my download speed isn't worth crap. and finally find that its this ZZRatio crap.

I have 160gig uploaded, with a 5.79:1 radio UL:DL, and this crap is downloading me to 16kb/s just cause i closed emule once in a month.

I'm just saying, people like me who generally run it forever, i just leave it running once i'm done downloading, but if i want to get something and for whatever reason it stopped i start it up again, and let it run till my computer crashes or similar. (MorphXT build at very least still crashes on running out of disk space last i checked)


Anyways, my main point is that this ZZRatio is a good /idea/ but needs to be reworked so people like me who share a shit-ton more than they download shouldn't have a huge penalty for a few HOURS cause this thing only takes into account session. Till this gets reworked i think i'm going to just close emule anytime my downloads finish cause cumulative ratio is worth shit with this.
Another reason for that, is that at least in every place i've been download speed is far greater than 3 times the upload speed (right now i have 512kbit up, while 3mbit download, thats 6:1, and this about the lowest ratio i've had (used to have 8mbit down:128kbit up) So Mule crashing, or computer crashing would KILLLLLL my download for like 24 hours at least probably.
0

#56 User is offline   LorenzoC 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,478
  • Joined: 05-September 04

Posted 16 September 2008 - 07:54 AM

The point is in a SHARING network you don't earn any "credit" because you share. It is just what you are supposed to do. You aren't limited because of it but you aren't rewarded either. And the ZZ ratio allows you to download 3 or 4 times what you are uploading in that session, which is much more than the 1:1 ratio that should be "fair".
0

#57 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5,541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 16 September 2008 - 08:49 PM

Cumulative ratio cannot be used because it can be easily faked, while the session ratio cannot.
Unfortunately, that's how ZZRatio works. If you do not like it, use the official client that allows you to have an infinite download speed with just 10KB/s of upload.
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#58 User is offline   zz 

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Debugger
  • Posts: 2,014
  • Joined: 30-November 02

Posted 17 September 2008 - 04:37 PM

I agree about cumulative ratio. Would love to use it, but there's no way to store it that's not too easily tampered with.

/zz B)
ZZUL - get control of your uploads: ZZUL Forum
0

#59 User is offline   Eibwen 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: 04-January 04

Posted 18 September 2008 - 04:40 AM

I'll clearify that i never intended that ONLY cumulative ratio would be used, just factored in in some fashion so that good (giving the benefit of the doubt to the config files being accurate) would not have, or have less of a initial time before they can download at full speed.


One thought about modifying it, as one of these posts mentioned, installing a different mod client or the offical would be easier than editing the config, or with some extra effort and knowledge i could just about as easily get the source code and remove that section


And finally a couple thoughts on how i might implement this:
the first 10/15/30 minutes or something give the user the benefit of the doubt about the cumulative ratio not being edited, then after that time limit go fully off session ratio.
in that case, even if you edited the config files, restarting every 10 minutes would make you lose connections so doing that to bypass the ratio would make it slower than actually uploading some.

Or factor in the cumulative as a part of it somehow, either a larger cumulative ratio would allow you to be at 5:1 for a lets say the first 30 minutes of this session
Or if you wanted to get complicated about it, right when you start it averages the two ratios, then the percentage of the average used is reduced over time to eventually being only dependent on the session ratio
0

#60 User is offline   pier4r 

  • Ex falso quodlibet ; Kad is the major concept behind emule.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 31-March 09

Posted 18 September 2009 - 10:55 AM

I have observed that, when i not limit the download and i hit the zz_ratio, my download graph start to show spikes, like this: Posted Image. So, after about 10 minutes since first spike's row, my download graph become unstable (only spikes), and my ratio rise to 1:3.01, 1:3,02, etc...

For avoid this behaviour i did some tests, and i have see that emule's download limit don't work as expected (i don't know the reason). If i set download limit to 100 kb/s, and i can download (without limit in the same moment) @ 180-200 kb/sec, my average download will be 80kb/sec (so not close to 100).

Then, my suggestion is:

When U:D ratio reaches 1:2.9 (or 2.95) the client automatically set the download limit to:

minUPload*4.375 (where minUPload is the setting in USS if it's enable or the setting in Option-->connection)

I do this manually and all works fine (no more spikes, ratio close to 1:3).
>>> My wiki (ITA) on emule >>>Feature Request (ICS) or SOTN, ClientAnalyzer >>>EmuleCollectionV2 same KAD load but more and more published files in the same time >>>Emule on old hardware (pentium 2 or 3 - c3 - and so on) with good OS settings and enough ram (256 mb): win >>>user of: Xtreme 6.1|7.2, ZZUL bastard 1.9.10, SharX 1.7|1.8b5, SharkX 1.8b5 pierQR 0.1|0.6, ZZUL-Tra 1.9|?
.My SF
###.it
. Le capacitÓ logiche di qualcuno sono riassumibili con le frasi: click.
0

  • Member Options

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users