Slot Focus
#1
Posted 07 June 2008 - 06:11 PM
I may have missed some posts, but why isn't there a slot focus on the official client whereas it seems to work pretty well on few mods ? First result is a higher average ULed per session (it helps UL full chunk).
#2
Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:21 PM
#3
Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:25 PM
This post has been edited by gigatoaster: 07 June 2008 - 10:26 PM
Aide officielle eMule Tutoriels, Aides diverses et liens utiles >>TADELU<<
Les règles du forum
Ce serait sympa de lire "A lire avant de poster" AVANT de poster, il sert à ça ce post
LENTEUR DES TELECHARGEMENTS : LES RAISONS
#4
Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:28 PM
- feel the lightweight! - featuring Snarl support, the Client Analyzer and tits!
Coded by a Golden eMule Award winner and most people's favorite modder!
..........................................
Music, not muzak:
Progressive Rock :: my last.fm profile
..........................................
eMule user since 0.28 ...
-[ ... and thanks for all the fish! ]-
#5
#6
Posted 08 June 2008 - 01:06 PM
[Imagine there was a sarcasm meter right here!]
No, there will not be a new version of my mods. No, I do not want your PM. No, I am certain, use the board and quit sending PMs. No, I am not kidding, there will not be a new version of my mods just because of YOU asking for it!
#7
Posted 08 June 2008 - 01:35 PM
Also most users prefer a constant download over fast spikes and 0-downloads (even through it would be the same amount of data in the end). Those rather rare users who really have an advantage of SF may use a mod which suits there needs.
So no we won't implement SF. However as transferespeeds got faster in the last years its possible that we raise the average upload per slot a bit (in the magnitude of + 25%-75%) at some point.
#8
Posted 08 June 2008 - 03:09 PM
Quote
Makes sense. Perhaps change the formula to continue above 193kB/s also? I don't fully understand why it stops there at 7.5kB/s although clearly you need significantly more bandwidth at this speed per slot before number of slots is an issue.
#9
Posted 08 June 2008 - 06:14 PM
@SoSo: Perhaps you could make SF an "expert option", which can only be enabled by manually editing the prefs.ini ?
You want a light mod with source-dropping, Powershare and WiZaRd's ClientAnalyzer ?
Try Spike2-Mod !
You rather want to stick to official eMule but don't want to miss all the new fixes and optimizations from the mods ?
Try OfFixed-Mod !
This post has been edited 1 time, the last time by God: Tomorrow, 12:74 PM
#10
Posted 08 June 2008 - 07:09 PM
Famerlor, on Jun 8 2008, 08:14 PM, said:
I understand the point of not implementing SF, what about the choice of enabling/disabling it?
Aide officielle eMule Tutoriels, Aides diverses et liens utiles >>TADELU<<
Les règles du forum
Ce serait sympa de lire "A lire avant de poster" AVANT de poster, il sert à ça ce post
LENTEUR DES TELECHARGEMENTS : LES RAISONS
#11
Posted 08 June 2008 - 09:22 PM
niclights, on Jun 8 2008, 05:09 PM, said:
Quote
Makes sense. Perhaps change the formula to continue above 193kB/s also? I don't fully understand why it stops there at 7.5kB/s although clearly you need significantly more bandwidth at this speed per slot before number of slots is an issue.
gigatoaster, on Jun 8 2008, 09:09 PM, said:
- 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!)
#12
Posted 09 June 2008 - 10:58 AM
netfinity, on Jun 8 2008, 10:22 PM, said:
I have never looked at someone uploading to me at 1B/s and thought "oooh thats a bad client because they are uploading slow to me". On some files I am just thankful that I get even that.
I think SF is a somewhat misunderstood. As "some support" points out SF neither makes uploads Faster nor do you upload more. I think this can be clarified by a simple example.
Suppose you have a 3 chunk file to upload to 3 people with a maximum upload bandwidth of 30kb/s. (assuming that everyone can also download at least at 30kb/s), With the official client each person gets 10kb/s and the whole transfer takes ~ 45mins . Lets assume person A got chunk 1 person B got chunk 2 and person C got chunk 3, the amount of time it would take for each person to get their own respective "first chunk" would be ~ 15mins. With SF however each person gets the full 30kb/s in series. So person A gets chunk 1 in 5mins, Person B after waiting 5mins gets chunk 2 in 5mins, and person C after waiting 10mins gets chunk 3 in 5mins. So all the people get their own respective "first chunk" after a total time of 15mins. So as you can see it makes no difference, However the time it takes for a chunk to become available to others to download in the official version is 15mins, whereas in SF the time it takes before a chunk becomes available is 5mins. This contributes to the overall download time since after 5mins Person B and C can be downloading chunk 1 from person A (rather than downloading from you) instead of waiting 5 or 10mins respectively. Therefore network "on the whole" benefits from SF since the whole transfer could take < 45mins.
(admittedly the example is very theoretical, and make some assumptions)
So to summarize, With SF Uploads are not faster nor do you upload more, the only thing which is less is the time to which the full chunk becomes available to other people.
This post has been edited by GilesBathgate: 09 June 2008 - 11:18 AM
#13
Posted 09 June 2008 - 11:24 AM
GilesBathgate, on Jun 9 2008, 12:58 PM, said:
netfinity, on Jun 8 2008, 10:22 PM, said:
Firstly I think trickle slots are a feature of the official client, so it doesn't hide anything. Secondly I have never looked at someone uploading to me at 1B/s and thought "oooh thats a bad client because they are uploading slow to me". On some files I am just thankful that I get even that.
- 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!)
#14
Posted 09 June 2008 - 01:29 PM
netfinity, on Jun 9 2008, 12:24 PM, said:
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would dropping sources decrease file download time, has this something to do with max connections?
EDIT: Yes I meant decrease or prehaps I was thinking 'Increase speed'
This post has been edited by GilesBathgate: 09 June 2008 - 02:02 PM
#15
Posted 09 June 2008 - 01:47 PM
GilesBathgate, on Jun 9 2008, 03:29 PM, said:
netfinity, on Jun 9 2008, 12:24 PM, said:
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would dropping sources increase file download time, has this something to do with max connections?
- 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!)
#16
Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:15 PM
netfinity, on Jun 9 2008, 02:47 PM, said:
Ah, (and now I will show off my lack of knowledge) and why can't you request the same block from two sources and choose the faster one?
BTW: I think Crumbs is a much better idea than SF and achieves the same goal of faster time to availability.
#17
Posted 09 June 2008 - 04:34 PM
GilesBathgate, on Jun 9 2008, 06:15 AM, said:
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!
#18
Posted 09 June 2008 - 06:05 PM
[Imagine there was a sarcasm meter right here!]
No, there will not be a new version of my mods. No, I do not want your PM. No, I am certain, use the board and quit sending PMs. No, I am not kidding, there will not be a new version of my mods just because of YOU asking for it!
#19
Posted 09 June 2008 - 07:14 PM
GilesBathgate, on Jun 9 2008, 02:58 PM, said:
For downloader if a part is received quickly means 1) another source for that part appear faster and 2) faster return to waiting queue.
For uploader big slots can lead to a certain loss of traffic as it takes time to achieve maximum speed.
Stulle, on Jun 9 2008, 10:05 PM, said:
#20
Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:19 PM
Some Support, on Jun 8 2008, 03:35 PM, said:
FYI,
To reduce tricle slots in morph there is the option "remove spare trickle slots". They are put back back in the same place in the waiting queue. If you disable that option Slot focus is disabled.
Since it is easy to set slotfocus up wrongly, causing a lot of small slots, for the average user maybe it is too hard.
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.