[Heliotropo]

Quote

Do I get it correctly, that the user was in the process of getting data from you, you tried to message, and then the user disconnected?

That's how it is. The user is in my upload queue uploading. I send to him a message. The connection with him is cut off.
I have also tried it in the reverse situation, when I am downloading a file from a user. It seems that the problem is when sending the message to a user, it does not matter if it is in the upload or download queue.

This post has been edited by Heliotropo: 27 May 2021 - 04:19 PM

[stoatwblr]

path lengths may be an issue:

Failed to read shared directory "Z:\1-Series\F\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar.S2\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar.2x04.In.Which.Fred.Accidentally.Learns.A.Secret.And.Barney.And.Dino.Get.Closer.To.Further.From.The.Truth.avi" - Bad arguments to DosExecPgm.

[fox88]

Heliotropo, on 27 May 2021 - 07:14 PM, said:

The user is in my upload queue uploading.

It is possible to get the idea, and maybe there is an issue to investigate.
But terms were seriously messed up in your writing.
Here is a link to Docs.
Peers that could upload to you, are listed in your downloads.
On queue usually refers to waiting state, the other state would be transferring data (downloading and/or uploading).

[stoatwblr]

Startup delays:

The startup loop looks to be fairly inefficient. It walks (lstat) the directory tree, then lstats every single file in the tree - and then for some reason walks the directory tree again (this happens at reload too)

Even with SSDs, there's an incurred latency of around 2-10ms per lstat and 10-100ms per file open (which gets worse for network filesystems). This isn't noticable under normal circumstances but when a lot of files are involved it adds up quickly and these penalties tend to apply even when accessing areas of filesystems cached in memory or other trickery

Caching the results of the first pass and optimising the way the filesystem is looked at may use more memory(*) but usually pays dividends in order-of-magnitude level speedups

(*)As most DBAs will tell you: Optimising your query orders frequently results in LESS memory/cpu load

[PozzSt]

Compared to version 0.50a (3KB/s), what is the speed of each upload slot?

[stoatwblr]

PozzSt, on 05 June 2021 - 07:56 PM, said:

Compared to version 0.50a (3KB/s), what is the speed of each upload slot?

I have my upload set to 1MB/s and it's setting them to around 35kB/sec apiece. This slot allocation stays constant if I increase the bandwidth and I've seen uploads to individual peers climb over 1MB/sec (megabyte/sec) when there are no clients in the queue - but this doesn't happen often (usually just after restarts)

[QICKV8]

I have my upload set at 40 MB/s and see clients between 3-4MB/s sometimes eMule 0.60c
But when my max upload is reached eMule doesn't queue clients but reduces there max speed downloading

This post has been edited by QICKV8: 05 June 2021 - 08:43 PM

[stoatwblr]

new bug: file imports

If importing a bunch of files (amule part.met files), this works ok, but selecting all the imported entries in the import dialog and clearing them at once results a crash

Clearing them one at a time seems to be safe

[fox88]

stoatwblr, on 05 June 2021 - 11:44 PM, said:

selecting all the imported entries in the import dialog and clearing them at once results a crash

Will be fixed later.
Thank you for the report.

[stoatwblr]

stoatwblr, on 27 May 2021 - 10:19 PM, said:

path lengths may be an issue:

Failed to read shared directory "Z:\1-Series\F\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar.S2\The.Increasingly.Poor.Decisions.Of.Fred.Fubar.2x04.In.Which.Fred.Accidentally.Learns.A.Secret.And.Barney.And.Dino.Get.Closer.To.Further.From.The.Truth.avi" - Bad arguments to DosExecPgm.

Today this happened

09/06/2021 15:06:41: Failed to read shared directory "Z:\2-Movies\M\The.Man.From.U.N.C.L.E.\" - Path not found.

Perhaps the path parser library is suboptimal? (it also borks on files containing "?" - show names on NAS shares occasionally do)

[Heliotropo]

@fox88

Wouldn't it be better to reject or penalize in some way those who have invalid, not supported or disabled identification?

This post has been edited by Heliotropo: 13 June 2021 - 07:14 AM

[fox88]

Heliotropo, on 12 June 2021 - 07:34 PM, said:

Wouldn't it be better to reject or penalize in some way those who have invalid, not supported or disabled identification?

Could you please explain in detail where and how the current behaviour might be improved?

[Heliotropo]

It seems that even though the system detects users using rogue software (leecher) with the intention of taking advantage of compromised users, it apparently does nothing to try to prevent it. Some mods have implemented plugins to reject this kind of users or to limit their bandwidth. What do you think about it? How is the behavior of Emule 0.60 with these users? Perhaps this matter has already been discussed among the project developers and some decisions have been made. But I would like this kind of cheating behavior to have a negative cost for those users.

This post has been edited by Heliotropo: 14 June 2021 - 03:30 PM

[MistressAdmin]

Heliotropo, on 13 June 2021 - 07:12 PM, said:

It seems that even though the system detects users using rogue software (leecher) with the intention of taking advantage of compromised users, it apparently does nothing to try to prevent it. Some mods have implemented plugins to reject this kind of users or to limit their bandwidth. What do you think about it? How is the behavior of Emule 0.60 with these users? Perhaps this matter has already been discussed among the project developers and some decisions have been made. But I would like this kind of cheating behavior to have a negative cost for those users.

morph4u did implement ClientAnalyzer [WiZaRd]in his mods here, could this be what you mean?

[Heliotropo]

As far as I know, most of the emule mods have incorporated some system to punish leecher users. Even some emule leechers do. If the official version does, I am not able to appreciate it.
As emule 0.50, 0.51 and 0.60 already distinguish between users with identification successful, invalid, not supported or disabled, they could act against those users without successful identification in several ways: not allowing the connection, limiting the download bandwidth, etc ...
I would like fox88 to consider the possibility of including it in later versions, if it does not violate principles that should not be waived.

This post has been edited by Heliotropo: 17 June 2021 - 10:04 AM

[SS1900]

Heliotropo, on 17 June 2021 - 11:02 AM, said:

As emule 0.50, 0.51 and 0.60 already distinguish between users with identification successful, invalid, not supported or disabled, they could act against those users without successful identification in several ways: not allowing the connection, limiting the download bandwidth, etc ...
I would like fox88 to consider the possibility of including it in later versions, if it does not violate principles that should not be waived.

You mean like the old emule 0.49C [Offixed V1.0] that had added

Quote

ADDED : 80% score for non SI clients (Xman)

or what?

[Heliotropo]

I think those users don't care what rating they get, because it probably doesn't affect them much. Perhaps it would be more interesting to limit their bandwidth. I would propose that those users could not download above 5-10 kB/s so that it would not be as profitable for them to use an emule leecher, even if they progressed faster up the uploading lists.

[holysmoker]

*BUG report: I don't know if was already mentioned. When I click on a link on a website to add ed2k to emule, it not goes to the selected "active category" tab, but only on the main tab. Running emule 0.60c x64 version on Win10

This post has been edited by holysmoker: 19 June 2021 - 08:05 AM

[fox88]

holysmoker, on 19 June 2021 - 10:33 AM, said:

*BUG report: I don't know if was already mentioned. When I click on a link on a website to add ed2k to emule, it not goes to the selected "active category" tab, but only on the main tab. Running emule 0.60c x64 version on Win10

Does it differ from 0.50a?
There is an automatic category assignment option, and it would go oddly with adding to an active tab.

[holysmoker]

fox88, on 19 June 2021 - 12:29 PM, said:

holysmoker, on 19 June 2021 - 10:33 AM, said:

*BUG report: I don't know if was already mentioned. When I click on a link on a website to add ed2k to emule, it not goes to the selected "active category" tab, but only on the main tab. Running emule 0.60c x64 version on Win10

Does it differ from 0.50a?
There is an automatic category assignment option, and it would go oddly with adding to an active tab.

I'm not sure where this option is,but now it's not working on 0.60c. Could be cause I just overwrite the old emule folder and files? I did it also in appdata folder.