[omeringen]

About the last one, you can use Push Rare Files option. It doesn't take full sources into account but requests.

[d9d]

hello to all,

I use emule, and morphxt since....7.x I think.

I would like to know, from the people who discuss these things regularly....do you know whether any dev-team of any emule-fork plans to ever add the simple function to limit number-of-simultaneous-downloads ??

I know it was asked for a few times over the past 5 yrs or so...but I do not see it still, even when I updated to morph 12.5 a few months ago.

This is not a frivolous request, like for some non-functional little 'style' thing. There is a good reason for this feature...

There are many many people who still have no access to any broadband (maybe even the majority of the human-race still! I think). And that is my own situation. DSL simply can't be had where we live, at any price.

I am getting so exhausted from constantly, repeatedly, having to 'stop' many files from downloading, again and again....just to give one file a chance to actually download significantly/usefully.

We who are stuck on dialup have to do this -constantly-, all through the day...every day... It's really exhausting.

So....I ask again, to the good devs...PLEASE add this simple function.

Or, if it HAS been added, go ahead and criticize me for not finding it in 12.5...I don't mind! I will just be so happy and relieved that it's in emule now.

ps; I admit to not searching dozens of forum threads tonight for this subject. It is just too painful to do all those page-loads over slow dialup. Forgive me please, I ask it.

fwiw...I think that the 'handiest' way to use this feature would be to have it added to the right-click "Priority" list; e.g. auto, low, med, high, 'only'. In other words, we would choose which of the 'running' files we wish to run by itself, by clicking into 'priority, and clicking 'only'. Done! Until that file finally finishes. Or, if it stops for any reason (e.g., the sources go off-line), emule would start normal operation again. And we would choose another file to click to 'only'. This would be very practical, and a huge relief and life's-joy-increaser.

I thank you all sincerely for your generous gift of emule/morph, and for considering my feature-request.

d9d

This post has been edited by d9d: 12 July 2012 - 03:31 AM

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

d9d, on 12 July 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

fwiw...I think that the 'handiest' way to use this feature would be to have it added to the right-click "Priority" list; e.g. auto, low, med, high, 'only'. In other words, we would choose which of the 'running' files we wish to run by itself, by clicking into 'priority, and clicking 'only'. Done! Until that file finally finishes. Or, if it stops for any reason (e.g., the sources go off-line), emule would start normal operation again. And we would choose another file to click to 'only'. This would be very practical, and a huge relief and life's-joy-increaser.

That wouldn't help in your situation... you'd have to limit the number of DL sessions, not the number of downloading files as you can (theoretically) get 100 concurrent downloads on a single file

[d9d]

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on 11 July 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

That wouldn't help in your situation... you'd have to limit the number of DL sessions, not the number of downloading files as you can (theoretically) get 100 concurrent downloads on a single file

hola WiZard!

thanks for offering thoughts on this issue.

I am not understanding you though....probably because I'm not familiar with the special terminology. Color me a casual (but daily) user...not a 'coder' type. Are you talking about concurrent -sources- ?

So long as we (who are stuck on dialup) can focus all the available (pitiful ) bandwidth into a single file, that is the goal.

I should say that my recommendation to put it in the priority-context-menu was not an attempt to proffer a 'technical' suggestion; but only an ergonomic suggestion. It would be a good place for the function of "limit downloads to one; this one".

thank you again!
d9d

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

d9d, on 12 July 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

I am not understanding you though....probably because I'm not familiar with the special terminology. Color me a casual (but daily) user...not a 'coder' type. Are you talking about concurrent -sources- ?

So long as we (who are stuck on dialup) can focus all the available (pitiful ) bandwidth into a single file, that is the goal.

No, about concurrent download sessions. Even though you concentrate on ONE file there could be dozens of simultaneous download sessions which would overload your slow line again... so you should limit the number of concurrent download sessions, not the number of downloading files.


However, to focus on ONE file: stop all files except one, enable "resume next file on file completion" option in the preferences and you're done.

[d9d]

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on 12 July 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

No, about concurrent download sessions. Even though you concentrate on ONE file there could be dozens of simultaneous download sessions which would overload your slow line again... so you should limit the number of concurrent download sessions, not the number of downloading files.


However, to focus on ONE file: stop all files except one, enable "resume next file on file completion" option in the preferences and you're done.

oh, that's exciting!...I will load morph and look for that option immediately. I had not heard or seen of that. One hopes it is a setting that 'sticks' over time, i.e., between reboots...

In regards to concurrent download "sessions"...that term is unfamiliar to me. That is why I have not followed your thinking. I will look that one up, and learn.

wIzard, thank you again

[Leucos]

I have noticed by chance some peers in my queue trying to download same chunk of a file for a long time. I've tried to rename the file and refresh list to force a rehash and, as I suppose, there was an hash mismatch. I don't know how it's happened; probably it has been an antivirus-HIPS's fault.

Anyway, the point is: given that these things can happen and are very harmful for network, do you think it could be useful having a sort of hash mismatch alert? Like a “rehash and match” command in context menu, I mean.

[omeringen]

Leucos, on 19 March 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

I have noticed by chance some peers in my queue trying to download same chunk of a file for a long time. I've tried to rename the file and refresh list to force a rehash and, as I suppose, there was an hash mismatch. I don't know how it's happened; probably it has been an antivirus-HIPS's fault.

Anyway, the point is: given that these things can happen and are very harmful for network, do you think it could be useful having a sort of hash mismatch alert? Like a “rehash and match” command in context menu, I mean.

There is feature called ASFU in StulleMule which tracks shared files/folders. But the case you described is really rare, i guess it happened to me once and yeah it's probably a fault of file system or protection software.

[sakurayz]

Do not want to change the existing directory structure needed in shared directories to increase the ability to exclude certain types of files, such as *.txt