splintax Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 PeX might not seem to be that useful, but everyone seems to get WAY more peers when the tracker is down with BitComet than with any other client. I assume this is at least partially due to PeX, or else you would imagine it would be similar to µTorrent, since they use the same DHT network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margodth Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 the strange thing is that with older clients it never happened, either with utorrent.dows it means that newer clients requests more pieces ?sounds strange !There is also another chance related with this one you said.I've copied the note here, but if you want, you may find the source from eMule news pageMicrosoft released the Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP a few days ago, which will be distributed via the Windows Update within the next days. The SP2 is supposed to fix several bugs/exploits and to increase the security in general.One new "security features" limits the amount of simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection attempts and slows down all connection attempts, as soon as a limit has been reached. Unfortunatly this limit is "hard coded" and cannot be turned off by the user (while worms and other malware can easily patch some system files to avoid beeing affected).Since eMule tries to connect to many sources within a short time period and a part of those sources are unreachable (for example if an user went offline), it is possible that eMule triggers this limit - especially when downloading files with many sources. This will slow down finding and contacting sources which could lead to a slightly decreased performance in general, however we are still investigating on the excact impact and will try to implement a fix/walk-arround into the next eMule version if necessary.There is a patch/hack available which turns off this limit by manipulating system files (you can find it by googling for "4226fix"). We have not tested this patch and want to point out that editing system files always poses a risk. Therefore we cannot recommend this patch in general, but for experienced users who suffer slowdowns because of the connection limit this patch could be a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 peer exchange is dishonestSo is, in a sense, the things that many BTers download. If we agree to make it respect the private flag used in private trackers (like DHT), would that help?PEx is a nice auxiliary and allows a provisional bridge between the 2 DHT system. Anything that increases our access to peers is a good feature and worth it. I suppose it'd be easier than implementing another DHT system in uTorrent too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Yep, it was suggested that PEX should respect the private flag around the time it was first requested (I was one of those first few requesting it a few months ago xP). PEX would definitely be very useful, and will be instrumental in taking the cheating client down (or at least forcing changes in it so that it doesn't go down). Oh how useful a weapon competition can be ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I'd rather have another DHT system than PEX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 An unified DHT system and PEX (for those clients that won't add DHT support) is probably most desirable, but alas, it probably won't happen... Adding another DHT network (namely Azureus') definitely sounds like it would be a nice addition, but for the reason I stated above, PEX should probably still be added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocky888 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 He's a lazy fuck, it took him FOUR months to fix 2 bugs, and he was AWOL for like half a year or something. :mad: And most of this behavior is probably intentional, it's hard to make so many fuckups "by accident"have you consider that BC is in development for years and ut only just startedmaybe the author is busy or a bit tired now for supporting a free product for years and still getting crap from inconsiderate peoples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 have you consider that BC is in development for years and ut only just startedmaybe the author is busy or a bit tired now for supporting a free product for years and still getting crap from inconsiderate peoplesOne has to admit the DHT-bug especially is a pretty critical bug. The only bugs that are worse will be the kind that makes it spit out corrupt data or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 BC has always been a leecher client from the start. So I don't buy that crap. He's never cared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I've heard nothing but people calling BitComet a cheating client since I first heard about it (several years ago). I doubt it would be called that unless it were true, and if the author really cared, he'd have fixed it from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Oh I'm sure he does care, just in the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkman Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I'd rather have another DHT system than PEXIf you mean the Azureus DHT, then I really don't agree. More DHT overhead on top of what the current DHT has is not at all desirable. PEX is very useful as "glue", even for DHT capable clients, facilitating the finding of more peers (as I know from experience).BitComet bashing aside, this is a needed feature if you are ever going to replace it entirely for many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 What makes you think that Azureus DHT would add more overhead, but PeX wouldn't?I think first we should get Azureus's DHT built-in to µTorrent, allowing it to act as a bridge. That would, in my opinion, make it unbeatable as a client for weak torrents. PeX would only strengthen this. Of course, no DHT nor PeX should be active on a private torrent. Also, all networks should be permanently disableable, just incase the overhead concerns you that much. I personally would put Azureus DHT at higher priority...Oh, and about BC's developer running out of time; he can always open-source it or sell it. I'm sure some company would be happy to pay for it and stick ads in it, since he doesn't really seem to care about the BitTorrent network it wouldn't suprise nor bother me to see BC sell out like this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I agree that PEX should be added. Not all Bittorrent-clients support DHT, not everyone turns on DHT, not everyone even uses the same DHT, etc, etc. Though DHT is a very good technology, it is not some magic answer IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 the only three clients that support PEX support DHT, except BitLord which doesn't even matter anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tumu Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Bitvomit being such abusive client overall, why should uTorrent support any features coming from it? Bitvomit needs to die and PeX with it.For those who think about overheads, PeX has more overhead than even Azureus DHT. PeX requires you to transfer a list of peers every time it is used with another peer, DHT does not. Given that PeX uses UDP, the amount of issues with UDP-challenged routers would just increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Bitvomit being such abusive client overall, why should uTorrent support any features coming from it? Bitvomit needs to die and PeX with it.LOLOLOLOL funny that is, but maybe just a bit harsh? Wouldnt it be better if the dev just fixed the Comet so that it plays fair? The dev obviously has some talent but seems to abuse it some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anoxan Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 well, you'd have thought he'd fix the dht "bug" a lot sooner..along with all the other "bugs" that keep it banned on private trackers if he really wanted it to play fair.I really don't think the dev plans to "fix" bc..he only fixed the dht thing to shut people up and stop flooding his email/pm box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Bitvomit being such abusive client overall, why should uTorrent support any features coming from it? Bitvomit needs to die and PeX with it.It is possible for a program to be bad but to have some good features. Encryption is apparently what keeps a lot of people using BitComet (it allows them to get past some ISPs they can't otherwise) and any feature that increases the access to other peers is arguably a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 One has to admit the DHT-bug especially is a pretty critical bug. The only bugs that are worse will be the kind that makes it spit out corrupt data or something.I've read BitComet can do that too if you set upload bandwidth too low and try to run too many torrents at once. Almost all the hash failed chunks come from either BitComet or p2p-corruptors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD32 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 nat-traversal is another feature that i will miss anyway.What? So that the client cant accept incoming connections? Someone can mention if i'm wrong here, but that means no uploading can be done?Of course, if by nat transversal you mean not having to do port forwarding, uTorrent can do uPnP, so if your router supports it, ut can automagically forword the port to your computer for the time that it needs to be open.D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus_1250 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 It means people cannot connect to you, so both up- and downloading will suffer. Both NAT-traversal and UPnP are not fool proof technologies. They don't always work, so best is still manual port-forwarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoko3k Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 klaus_1250, you can't always access your router configuration.If you're in a lan and your sysadmin won't allow p2p or incoming connections, nat-t is the only solution.--in italy there's an isp (mine, fastweb) which give internet access (10mbit half duplex) through nat, and you cannot forward anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 NAT traversal is where, as kokoko3k said, you can still be connectable (sort of) without port-forwarding. In many situations, you can't port-forward at all.I agree that PEX should be added. Not all Bittorrent-clients support DHT, not everyone turns on DHT, not everyone even uses the same DHT, etc, etc. Though DHT is a very good technology, it is not some magic answer IMHO.Similarly, not everyone turns on PeX, etc... though I suppose you can still connect to peers obtained via PeX who don't even have it on. If you're concerned about the overhead, I'm sure it will be possible to disable it.Almost all the hash failed chunks come from either BitComet or p2p-corruptors.Everyone knows that all the anti-p2p groups use BitComet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Almost all the hash failed chunks come from either BitComet or p2p-corruptors.Everyone knows that all the anti-p2p groups use BitComet. I don't.BitComet may be mod-able, but whatever the anti-p2p groups are using...is probably not even running on a Windows box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.