Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About jewelisheaven

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Yeah, there wasn't too long ago a request for conditional replace, similar to find-by-key/value except as another key/value as the primary condition. If you want to do things that way I'd recommend starting small, by label then. So you filter one label at a time, or just do each individually right now if the scripts previously in the thread don't help.
  2. Did you read the first post? If you only want to change specific paths, you can use Find/Replace-by-value if not, you can use Find/Replace All
  3. So the spurts of Vista crashes was a regression? Is it Vista-based or Vista-specific. . . All the people running Win7, do we tell them to update?
  4. 1st, that's part of the cookie isn't it? 2nd, Ultima mentioned it in toppost. You did read the top post didn't you? ;P
  5. Thank you for keeping up the good work guys
  6. I wouldn't call sparse files BROKEN, however when files have > 65534 chunks of sparse data, the OS was breaking. This is of course very unlikely in small files, but when you get into the multi-gigabyte files it becomes more of an issue. So, to note, files are only made sparse on creation. So, turn it ON make new files.
  7. What pre-allocate? diskio.sparse_files is default OFF these days. It was to avoid Vista issues. However given the new ntfs.sys has the fix By Windows 7, it should be enabled TRUE by default.
  8. The not re-checking is apparently a regression between this latest and the previous 15358.
  9. Forgive me, but I just noticed this because someone bumped it, but according to THIS is "our" guide *now*. Maybe IT will be adopted by 1.9 stable. Edit: Fail-fu is at 1000 today, for manual URLs.
  10. You still haven't mentioned HOW YOU ARE GAUGING these numbers.
  11. Guess MY result is the anomaly :/
  12. I set 1.9 or 1.8.3 for that matter to 10, which is UTP only yes. I set 1.8.2 to 0 (no UTP), Banned. I set 1.8.2 to 2 or 3, connection successful. This is not a problem when set to 5 or any other combination allowing TCP.
  13. Explain why I couldn't connect then. Banned is pretty much self explanatory ??
  14. ... IF @ 0 uT is still accepting UTP connections, that is a bug (I could not reproduce) Testing multiple connection attempts on LAN peers, I didn't see this multiple connection behavior :/ sorry. Edit: seems they did backport disabling TCP and make bt.transp_disposition=0 work correctly, as says that 1.8.2 still accepts incoming. Fortunately, I don't see that. :/
  15. Not sure whether you're talking about packets or connection attempts as you use both in your report. As far as configuring UTP, that's what bt.transp_disposition is for.