Official eMule-Board: Emule V0.47a [ese V1.0b] (2006-04-24) - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Emule V0.47a [ese V1.0b] (2006-04-24) Updated DBR and ReadBlockFromFileThread

#41 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 29 March 2006 - 04:19 PM

SiRoB, on Mar 29 2006, 02:26 PM, said:

If in that chunk we already got a good source we are blocking 180kB that may have a great chance to be canceled during a worst case of 25.6min (trickle source).
Such sources should be banned! :D
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#42 User is offline   BlueSonicBoy 

  • Magnificent Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: 26-September 04

Posted 29 March 2006 - 07:19 PM

SiRoB, on Mar 29 2006, 07:26 AM, said:

That what i wanted to point.
But we are still sending a full block on a first attempt.
If in that chunk we already got a good source we are blocking 180kB that may have a great chance to be canceled during a worst case of 25.6min (trickle source).

View Post


I know :flowers: , I don't think there is an easy answer...
If we always send a small first request, limit it to eMule clients to avoid the 'hoard' problem; in many cases the source will transfer at an acceptable rate and we will have sent a smaller request for no gain...

The way, I've coded it, there is a chance that a very slow/new source will request a block before the threshold.... emm.. In fact maybe I should have written that as below, but still a really slow source could start with >3072000 of the part left...

Quote


uint16 PartAsked = sender->m_lastPartAsked;//so we know if it's a new source later
        // Main loop
uint16 newBlockCount = 0;
while(newBlockCount != *count){
  // Create a request block stucture if a chunk has been previously selected
  if(sender->m_lastPartAsked != (uint16)-1){
        //Reduce end of part block size for first block/slow source
      if(bytesPerRequest == EMBLOCKSIZE &&  ((sender->GetDownloadDatarate()==0 && sender->IsEmuleClient() && DataRemainingInPart(sender->m_lastPartAsked)<3072000) || (sender->GetDownloadDatarate()<400 && PartAsked!=(uint16)-1)))
            {
              bytesPerRequest = 30720;
              }


I think, as DBR will take care of things up to 100Mb or so, if we are outside of this range it is safe to assume we have a number of incomplete parts, so as eMule tries to spread it's requests, the chances of a new source starting a full part and then another source joining it are reduced, a little; though of course in the real world chances are two sources could only have one part we need. :flowers:


edit: to fix stupid error! :-k

This post has been edited by BlueSonicBoy: 30 March 2006 - 12:31 AM

0

#43 User is offline   Tesseract 

  • Mule whisperer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3524
  • Joined: 03-May 04

Posted 30 March 2006 - 09:29 AM

Great mod, netfinity! DBR works fine. :)
Todo lo que me gusta es ilegal,
es inmoral,
o engorda...
0

#44 User is offline   moloko+ 

  • ...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:06 PM

thanks, yes DBR works well!

condensed anti shape code:

Quote

//BEGIN netfinity: Anti Shape
if (GetDownloadedTotal() < ((thePrefs.TransferFullChunks()) ? (PARTSIZE/2) : 2000000)) return 1.0F;
//END netfinity: Anti Shape

would it be reasonable to use 1677722 (1.6MB) for bit of fine tuning?
0

#45 User is offline   leuk_he 

  • MorphXT team.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5975
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 11 April 2006 - 01:15 PM

moloko+, on Apr 11 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

would it be reasonable to use 1677722 (1.6MB) for bit of fine tuning?
View Post



If all mods are going to start to finetune to a hard coded value then credit shapers will just use a value depending on the modstring. Why not use a value that depends on the inclanation of mars relative to the current location. ( like 1.4 MB+ RANDOM at startup)
Download the MorphXT emule mod here: eMule Morph mod

Trouble connecting to a server? Use kad and /or refresh your server list
Strange search results? Check for fake servers! Or download morph, enable obfuscated server required, and far less fake server seen.

Looking for morphXT translators. If you want to translate the morph strings please come here (you only need to be able to write, no coding required. ) Covered now: cn,pt(br),it,es_t,fr.,pl Update needed:de,nl
-Morph FAQ [English wiki]--Het grote emule topic deel 13 [Nederlands]
if you want to send a message i will tell you to open op a topic in the forum. Other forum lurkers might be helped as well.
0

#46 User is offline   moloko+ 

  • ...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:07 PM

leuk_he, on Apr 11 2006, 11:15 PM, said:

... Why not use a value that depends on the inclanation of mars relative to the current location. ( like 1.4 MB+ RANDOM at startup)
View Post
:lol:

very good... now where is InclinationOfMars()...? :cool2:
0

#47 User is offline   Andu 

  • Morph Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13009
  • Joined: 04-December 02

Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:38 PM

You'd need some kind of GPS feed to point your location. Unless of course your ISP is willing to deliver that information when you dial into the network.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.


Dark Lord of the Forum


Morph your Mule

Need a little help with your MorphXT? Click here

0

#48 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 11 April 2006 - 06:19 PM

When a client have the 'Try To Upload Full Chunks' feature disabled, it uploads approx. 2.5MB per session and therefore I chosed 2MB as the threshold. However if we upload full chunks we might want to ensure we got atleast half of what we are about to give.

Essentialy, it's a good idea to let this value to be unpredictable as credit-shapers would have a hard time guessing how much they need to upload to advance in the queue.
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#49 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 11 April 2006 - 06:24 PM

A shaper can't do anything if you do not use the credit system at all though you will also serve very bad leechers that's why I prefer a CS.
However rising the treshold to at least 1 chunk should definately finish them off - and IF a leecher uploads that much I wouldn't consider him a leecher anymore :D
0

#50 User is offline   alpdruck 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 25-August 04

Posted 11 April 2006 - 06:27 PM

Why don't we use half of the upload amount + random amount generated by a random number generator every 3-4hours? Too much cpu use?
0

#51 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 11 April 2006 - 07:38 PM

@tHeWiZaRdOfDoS
I'd prefer credit shapers over real leechers, so I have not that much of a problem to give them some credit for their upload. However I don't want them to get to much of an advantage over good clients. I'll think due to the dynamics of the network, with my thresholds a credit shaper would be required to upload to the network about as much as he downloads to get a noticable boost.

There is a reason to not set the threshold too high and that is all the clients that are limited to an internet connection with 128kbit/s or less upload. Those clients have a hard time to contribute to your download with as much as an entire part, but we still want to reward them for trying.

@alpdruck
Might be an idea. Not sure if it's good or bad thought!
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#52 User is offline   moloko+ 

  • ...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1209
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 11 April 2006 - 09:38 PM

btw, thanks leuk_he & netfinity & all (Andu),

Anti Shape (+ Random)?

yeah these values are a bit high (just added them for test - it's working :))

GetRandomUInt16() // max random value = 32767

random max = 1000KB (1024000)
initial val = 4864000
with random = 4864000 + (GetRandomUInt16() * 31) // (1024000/32767) = ~31

random max = 500KB (512000)
initial val = 2000000
with random = 2000000 + (GetRandomUInt16() * 16) // (512000/32767) = ~16

OR could use one var?

Quote

...
m_btransferfullchunks=ini.GetBool(L"FullChunkTransfers",true);
//BEGIN netfinity : Anti Shape (+ Random) - LoadPreferences
m_AntiShape_Rand_Full = (uint64)(GetRandomUInt16()*31);
m_AntiShape_Rand = (uint64)(GetRandomUInt16()*16);
//END
...
...also declare m_AntiShape_Rand_Full, m_AntiShape_Rand

Quote

...
//BEGIN netfinity : Anti Shape (+ Random)
if (GetDownloadedTotal() < (thePrefs.TransferFullChunks() ? (4864000 + thePrefs.m_AntiShape_Rand_Full) : (2000000 + thePrefs.m_AntiShape_Rand))) return 1.0F;
//END
...



Some Leech Protection? - IDEA

formula works ok... utilizes ratio under 1.0F but...

Quote

//ANTI SHAPE HERE...

//BEGIN Some Leech Protection?
if (DOWNLOADING_FILE){ // no effect on complete shared files :( - since transdown == 0
// Slow Ratio
if (transup > (SOME_THRESHOLD) && transup > (transdown * 3)) { // amount transferred up > amount transferred down * 3
  float slow_ratio = 0.0F;
  slow_ratio = (float)(((float)(transdown+1)/(float)(transup+3))*3.0);
  if (slow_ratio < 0.1F)
  return 0.1F;
  //else if (slow_ratio > 1.0F) // never happens
  //return 1.0F;
  return slow_ratio; // < 1.0F
}
// fall through to official credit...
}
//END

//OFFICIAL CREDIT HERE...


needs work...
0

#53 User is offline   gordo77 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 13-April 06

Posted 14 April 2006 - 10:19 AM

ahhh yes, that reminds me of the aldred kensington mod, those were the days. once the fornicating baboon mod was exploited, It was all downhill from there.

regards gordo.
0

#54 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 23 April 2006 - 09:10 AM

Realized I made a mistake in interpreting what ZZs code in SendBlockRequests did. The thresholds for how many blocks should be asked at certain datarates must be much higher otherwise Dynamic Block Requests wont work as it is supposed to.

Quote

void CUpDownClient::SendBlockRequests()
{
    ...
    // prevent locking of too many blocks when we are on a slow (probably standby/trickle) slot
    int blockCount = 3;
    if(IsEmuleClient() && m_byCompatibleClient==0 && reqfile->GetFileSize()-reqfile->GetCompletedSize() <= (uint64)PARTSIZE*4) {
        // if there's less than two chunks left, request fewer blocks for
        // slow downloads, so they don't lock blocks from faster clients.
        // Only trust eMule clients to be able to handle less blocks than three
        if(GetDownloadDatarate() < 18 * 1024) { // netfinity: Raised threshold so that more blocks are requested if the current ones are consumed in less than 10 seconds
            blockCount = 1;
        } else if(GetDownloadDatarate() < 36 * 1024) { // netfinity: Raised threshold so that more blocks are requested if the current ones are consumed in less than 10 seconds
            blockCount = 2;
        }
    }
    CreateBlockRequests(blockCount);
    ...

Will be fixed in ESE 1.0b.

/netfinity
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#55 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 23 April 2006 - 09:45 AM

Eurrr? Maybe you meant the file->GetDataRate() ?? But that's the clients datarate... I rarely download with 10+kB from a single client...
0

#56 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 23 April 2006 - 10:08 AM

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on Apr 23 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Eurrr? Maybe you meant the file->GetDataRate() ?? But that's the clients datarate... I rarely download with 10+kB from a single client...
View Post
Actualy, I mean the clients datarate. In order to make DBR to work efficiently during the endgame, we should only allocate 1 block at a time except for some cases where network RTT and disk latency could become a speed limiting factor. As I guess that latency for high speed sources would rarely exceed 1 second, I decided it's OK to trade 10% of your download speed for a faster endgame. This means only asking for approx. 10 seconds worth of data at a time.

Note that, asking for less blocks does not increase the overhead as these block request packages are always of the same size and always sent when a block is completed. The only thing is that there will be a short delay after a block completes until the next one can be donwloaded.
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#57 User is offline   BlueSonicBoy 

  • Magnificent Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 396
  • Joined: 26-September 04

Post icon  Posted 23 April 2006 - 08:17 PM

netfinity, on Apr 23 2006, 04:10 AM, said:

Realized I made a mistake in interpreting what ZZs code in SendBlockRequests did. The thresholds for how many blocks should be asked at certain datarates must be much higher otherwise Dynamic Block Requests wont work as it is supposed to.

Quote

void CUpDownClient::SendBlockRequests()
{
    ...
    // prevent locking of too many blocks when we are on a slow (probably standby/trickle) slot
    int blockCount = 3;
    if(IsEmuleClient() && m_byCompatibleClient==0 && reqfile->GetFileSize()-reqfile->GetCompletedSize() <= (uint64)PARTSIZE*4) {
    ...

Will be fixed in ESE 1.0b.

/netfinity
View Post


Ok, I have been touting this code shamelessly for ages. :-k
But you might find it useful? :ph34r: :flowers:
Using the code below you can get rid of the "eMule only" clause. Doing so IMHO has more benifits than drawbacks...

In DownClient.cpp

void CUpDownClient::CreateBlockRequests(int iMaxBlocks) said:

//TK4 Mod - Add single block splitting code
void CUpDownClient::CreateBlockRequests(int iMaxBlocks)
{
  ASSERT( iMaxBlocks >= 1 /*&& iMaxBlocks <= 3*/ );
if (m_DownloadBlocks_list.IsEmpty())
    {
      uint16 count;
    //START block splitting code since 1.5a only split blocks for none eMule clients save overhead
      if(iMaxBlocks==1 && !m_PendingBlocks_list.GetCount() && (!IsEmuleClient() || m_byCompatibleClient!=0))
      {//Block count reduction has activated convert the 1 block request to 3 blocks
        count = iMaxBlocks;
        Requested_Block_Struct** toadd = new Requested_Block_Struct*[1];
        if(reqfile->GetNextRequestedBlock(this,toadd,&count))
          {//splits 1 block into 3. generally 1 180Kb block into 3 60Kb blocks
            Requested_Block_Struct* block_one = new Requested_Block_Struct;
            Requested_Block_Struct* block_two = new Requested_Block_Struct;
            Requested_Block_Struct* block_thr = new Requested_Block_Struct;
            uint32 thirdblocksize = (toadd[0]->EndOffset - toadd[0]->StartOffset)/3;
            /*First Block*/
            block_one->StartOffset = toadd[0]->StartOffset;
            block_one->EndOffset = toadd[0]->StartOffset + thirdblocksize;
            md4cpy(block_one->FileID, toadd[0]->FileID);
            block_one->transferred = 0;
            /*Second Block*/
            block_two->StartOffset = block_one->EndOffset + 1;
            block_two->EndOffset = block_two->StartOffset + thirdblocksize;
            md4cpy(block_two->FileID, toadd[0]->FileID);
            block_two->transferred = 0;
            /*Third Block*/
            block_thr->StartOffset = block_two->EndOffset + 1;
            block_thr->EndOffset = toadd[0]->EndOffset;
            md4cpy( block_thr->FileID, toadd[0]->FileID);
            block_thr->transferred = 0;
            //add the 3 blocks
            reqfile->SwitchBlocks( block_one, block_two, block_thr, toadd );
            delete[] toadd;
            m_DownloadBlocks_list.AddTail( block_one );
            m_DownloadBlocks_list.AddTail( block_two );
            m_DownloadBlocks_list.AddTail( block_thr );
            while(m_PendingBlocks_list.GetCount() < 3 && !m_DownloadBlocks_list.IsEmpty())
                {
                  Pending_Block_Struct* pblock = new Pending_Block_Struct;
                  pblock->block = m_DownloadBlocks_list.RemoveHead();
                  m_PendingBlocks_list.AddTail(pblock);
                  }
            return;
          } else
                  {
                    delete[] toadd;
                    return;
                  }
        }//End block splitting code


      if(iMaxBlocks > m_PendingBlocks_list.GetCount()) count = iMaxBlocks - m_PendingBlocks_list.GetCount();
      else count = 0;

      Requested_Block_Struct** toadd = new Requested_Block_Struct*[count];

      if(reqfile->GetNextRequestedBlock(this,toadd,&count))
        {
        for (UINT i = 0; i < count; i++)
        m_DownloadBlocks_list.AddTail(toadd[ i ]);
        }
      delete[] toadd;
  }


while (m_PendingBlocks_list.GetCount() < iMaxBlocks && !m_DownloadBlocks_list.IsEmpty())
      {
        Pending_Block_Struct* pblock = new Pending_Block_Struct;
        block->block = m_DownloadBlocks_list.RemoveHead();
        m_PendingBlocks_list.AddTail(pblock);
      }
}

In PartFile.cpp

void CPartFile::SwitchBlocks(Requested_Block_Struct* block_one, on Requested_Block_Struct* block_two,Requested_Block_Struct* block_thr,Requested_Block_Struct** toadd ), said:

//TK4 Mod - 1 block to 3 block block splitter helper TK4 Mod v1.4a
void CPartFile::SwitchBlocks(Requested_Block_Struct* block_one,Requested_Block_Struct* block_two,Requested_Block_Struct* block_thr,Requested_Block_Struct** toadd )
{
        POSITION pos;
        POSITION posLast;
        //find the 1 full size block added
        posLast = pos = requestedblocks_list.GetTailPosition();
        Requested_Block_Struct* block = requestedblocks_list.GetNext(pos);
        if(toadd[0]->StartOffset == block->StartOffset && toadd[0]->EndOffset == block->EndOffset)
        {
            delete block; //delete full size block
            requestedblocks_list.RemoveAt(posLast); //remove it from the list
          }  else
                {//RemoveBlockFromList() + delete block;
                        for(pos = requestedblocks_list.GetHeadPosition(); pos != NULL; )
                          {
                            posLast = pos;
                            Requested_Block_Struct* block = requestedblocks_list.GetNext(pos);
                            if(block->StartOffset <= toadd[0]->StartOffset && block->EndOffset >= toadd[0]->EndOffset)
                              {
                                delete block; //delete full size block
                                requestedblocks_list.RemoveAt(posLast);
                              }
                          }
                  }
  //add the 3 1/3 size blocks
  requestedblocks_list.AddTail(block_one);
  requestedblocks_list.AddTail(block_two);
  requestedblocks_list.AddTail(block_thr);
}


Thanks for reading... :flowers:




Ok, I really can't stop now can I.....? :angelnot: :ph34r:


At this point in SendBlockRequests() I am trying to do a relative comparison!
Time for more old code I've been touting for ages...
In DownClient.cpp

void CUpDownClient::SendBlockRequests() said:

...   
// prevent locking of too many blocks when we are on a slow (probably standby/trickle) slot
    int blockCount = 3;
      if( reqfile->ReduceAllocatedBlocks(this ,this->m_lastPartAsked, 912) ){
      //near end of part with multiply sources, share the blocks out, slower sources have blockcount reduced first.     
          blockCount = 1;
      }
      CreateBlockRequests(blockCount);

...

In PartFile.cpp

CPartFile::ReduceAllocatedBlocks(CUpDownClient* calling_source, on uint16 m_PartAsked, UINT fixComparison), said:


bool CPartFile::ReduceAllocatedBlocks(CUpDownClient* calling_source, uint16 m_PartAsked, UINT fixComparison)
{
  //no 'part last asked for'
  if(m_PartAsked == (uint16)-1)
    {//improved for 1.5b
        if(calling_source->IsEmuleClient()) return true;
          else return false; //for hoard clients & prevent fragmentation from 10k DBR
    }

  //Quick Check, if there is only one source overall return no 'part last asked for'
  if(m_downloadingSourceList.GetCount()<2)
    {//if this source is the only source don't let it lock blocks if its too slow
      if(calling_source->GetDownloadDatarate() < fixComparison) return true;
      else return false;
    } 
 
  uint16 sourcecount = 0;
  uint32 remainingdata = 0;
  uint32 otherstransferrate = 1;// a value of 1 to prevent 'divide by zero' (saves 1 + otherstransferrate later)
  const uint32 threeblocks = EMBLOCKSIZE * 3;

  /*Calculate total transfering sources for this part and overall transfer speed.*/
  for(POSITION pos = m_downloadingSourceList.GetHeadPosition(); pos != NULL;)
    {
      //get next downloading source
      CUpDownClient* cur_src = srclist.GetNext(pos);
  //is this source sending data for the same part as the calling source but is not the calling source
      if(cur_src->m_lastPartAsked==m_PartAsked && cur_src!=calling_source)
        {
        sourcecount++;//increment sources for this part
      otherstransferrate += cur_src->GetDownloadDatarate();//add this clients transfer rate to the total
        }
      }
 
  //if calling source is the only currently transfering source for this part use fixed reference
  if(sourcecount < 1)
      {//if this source is the only source don't let it lock blocks if its too slow
        if(calling_source->GetDownloadDatarate() < fixComparison) return true;
          else return false;
      }

/* Calculate how much of the part is left in bytes (based on code from GetNextRequestedBlock() )*/
  // Offsets of 'this' chunk
  const uint64 uStart  = (uint64)m_PartAsked * PARTSIZE;
  const uint64 uEnd    = (GetFileSize() - (uint64)1 < (uStart + PARTSIZE - 1)) ?
        GetFileSize() - (uint64)1 : (uStart + PARTSIZE - 1);

  ASSERT( uStart <= uEnd );
  if(uStart >= uEnd) return false;

  //gets bytes remaining
  for(POSITION pos = gaplist.GetHeadPosition(); pos != NULL; )
    {
                const Gap_Struct* cur_gap = gaplist.GetNext(pos);
                //Check if Gap is into the limit
                if(cur_gap->start < uStart)
                  {
                    if(cur_gap->end > uStart && cur_gap->end < uEnd) remainingdata += cur_gap->end - uStart + 1;
                        else if(cur_gap->end >= uEnd) return false;
                  } else
                            if(cur_gap->start <= uEnd)
                          {
                              if(cur_gap->end < uEnd) remainingdata += cur_gap->end - cur_gap->start + 1;
                              else     remainingdata += uEnd - cur_gap->start + 1;
                            }
        }
 

  if(threeblocks > remainingdata) return true;//keep up combined download speed for as long as possible
    else remainingdata -= threeblocks;        //remainingdata to equal the remaining data after this client gets allocated 3 blocks


  //if(3 * EMBLOCKSIZE / 'calling source speed' >= 'remaining incomplete part size - 3 blocks'/'total other sources transfer rate') return true
  if((uint32)(threeblocks/(1 + calling_source->GetDownloadDatarate())) >= (uint32)(remainingdata/otherstransferrate)) return true;

  return false;
}


:punk:
0

#58 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 24 April 2006 - 06:32 PM

@BlueSonicBoy
Wow! That was a lot of code. A bit to much to include in the ESE mod I think, as I want to keep the code as simple as possible, but could be useful in some other mod.

You're right about getting rid of the "eMule only" would be a good thing. To be honest I'm not sure why it exists at all. As far as I know all clients can handle block requests with only one block. I've done it before and never seen any problem. I might look into that for a future mod.
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#59 User is offline   netfinity 

  • Master of WARP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 23-April 04

Posted 24 April 2006 - 06:46 PM

eMule v0.47a [ESE v1.0b]

New release !
eMule v0.50a [NetF WARP v0.3a]
- Compiled for 32 and 64 bit Windows versions
- Optimized for fast (100Mbit/s) Internet connections
- Faster file completion via Dynamic Block Requests and dropping of stalling sources
- Faster searching via KAD with equal or reduced overhead
- Less GUI lockups through multi-threaded disk IO operations
- VIP "Payback" queue
- Fakealyzer (helps you chosing the right files)
- Quality Of Service to keep eMule from disturbing VoIP and other important applications (Vista/7/8 only!)
0

#60 User is offline   Da GuRu 

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 25-December 02

Posted 24 April 2006 - 09:24 PM

:bouncehi:

Download Mirrors:
eMule-0.47a-ESE-0.1b-bin.rar
eMule-0.47a-ESE-0.1b-src.rar


Download more versions of eMule eMule ESE.MoD
Rate eMule eMule ESE.MoD @ emule-mods.de !!!
0

  • Member Options

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

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