[Tuxman]

The other client.

Currently it actually appends...

[Chike]

Tuxman, on Mar 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

The other client.

8 is is more than 18? I must have not listened in math class or what I have been taught was all wrong.
I am quite sure this info shows the other client DL/UL, not mine.

Tuxman, on Mar 23 2009, 02:20 PM, said:

Currently it actually appends...

Then why is it blank?

[Tuxman]

Maybe because there is nothing to append?

[Chike]

Tuxman, on Mar 23 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

Maybe because there is nothing to append?

Then why should they be fined?

Or it's a reason that cannot be described in words?

[Tuxman]

It mostly happens when they are currently balancing their ratio. The skull icon disappears shortly after that, then...
I would have to look into the src for further investigations...

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

It's possible that the score falls below 1 due to Upload/Download even though the remote client isn't considered a "very" bad client (yet)

[Chike]

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on Mar 23 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

It's possible that the score falls below 1 due to Upload/Download even though the remote client isn't considered a "very" bad client (yet)

Of course, that's common, but not when it's upload is greater than it's download, and there's no other reason.
But I think it should be realy left to the CS. Make it regressive (progressive?) maybe.
Also there are a lot of clients that let you download 2 megs that's enough to give them a score of 2. With enough sources that's all they need before they will be identifyed as leechers. So maybe activatine CS after a client uploads a full chunk is not a bad idea either.

This post has been edited by Chike: 23 March 2009 - 05:24 PM

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

IIRC the "uploaded" and "downloaded" values confuse nearly everyone... they really should be changed into "sent" and "received"...
In this example the remote client actually downloaded 18 MB off you and gave only 8 MB back so the UL/DL ratio comment is correct here (though I may be wrong, I didn't look into the official code for some time so I stand to be corrected).
Also, the UL/DL amounts are "weighted" by the CA - it's split into partfile data and rare data and it only works with full chunks so creditshaping or "leech"shaping (being falsely identified as a leecher) shouldn't be possible (the latter actually is but that's kinda intended... if someone downloads a lot off you then it's OK to want something back... if not we should remove the CS completely and stop fighting leechers alltogether).

[Chike]

tHeWiZaRdOfDoS, on Mar 23 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

IIRC the "uploaded" and "downloaded" values confuse nearly everyone... they really should be changed into "sent" and "received"...
In this example the remote client actually downloaded 18 MB off you and gave only 8 MB back so the UL/DL ratio comment is correct here (though I may be wrong, I didn't look into the official code for some time so I stand to be corrected).

Obviousely, it confuses you too. The confusion is about who did what, so changing it to sent/recived won't make it less confusing.
In the main windows it's "mine", and in client details it's "his". Once you understand that there's no confusion. .
It downloaded 8MB off me and gave 18MB to me, otherwise official modifier would not be 4.3.
Maybe it's DL/UL ratio was bad at some point, but surely not at that moment.
Or maybe the ratio changed while it was downloading and wasn't changed because it has not been on the waiting queue yet?

[Eulero]

on right-click in friend's list of messages windows, analyzzul crash. tuxman, i sent you a PM with dmp. 10x

[Tuxman]

It doesn't for me...

Let's see if I can track this, but actually I made no relevant changes to the menu code, except adding some items... thanks for the dump file however...

This post has been edited by Tuxman: 07 May 2009 - 12:50 AM

[tHeWiZaRdOfDoS]

Hi Tux,

I am currently modifying AnalyZZUL by request for a release group and I noticed that quite some parts of the analyzer are missing!
Namely: FileFaker and UDPFNF-Faker in DownloadClient.cpp as well as the anti-corruption code that I added while developing the CA (not lethal, though nice2have).

[Tuxman]

The Anti-Corruption code is not lethal, thus not added.
(Maybe I'd add it, though...)

The other two things are maybe lost during merge...
3.1 release is planned however, thanks for the hints...