Re: [Mldonkey-users] Release 2.5-4

[Roland Arendes]

Hi Denis,

>> I tested this patch in the past: #1765 (limit-reqs DANGER) and it seems
>> that my observations were correct. As Simon already stated, this patch
>> is
>> not very good and should be removed from the stable release. My donkey
>> doesn't download anything except Bittorrent at the moment.
> It works for me.
> The question is :
> 1) should we try to send to every client a request for every file we
> have in queue
> or
> 2) only to files that this client advertized (and that we want).

I agree to this, mldonkey is sending too much requests. But the patch does
not seem to work very good - or, if you're sure it does, then your theory
does not work out.

> Pro/cons :
> 1) The more files we have in queue the more requests you will send (and
> thus less useful upload).
> Having monitored edonkey traffic i can say that there is a _lot_ of
> FileNotFound  answers to those requests.

I saw that, too. Did you receive these clients from a server you're
connected to or via client propagation?

> For now i think that we should keep this patch in release. But we can
> think of alternative solutions like :

I think we should keep the idea, but not this certain patch.

> implement the new udp protocol between client and server to have more
> sources (where are those damn specs!!!)

Yep, agree. I'm sure lugdunummaster will give the specs to the coder (like
he did with the emule people), in his own interest (minimizing traffic).

> Or like i stated in the thread of this patch : implement a sort of
> "group of files" (+ automatic grouping via levenstein distance between
> file names : if LevDist(That_TV_Show_101.avi,That_TV_Show_102.avi) <
> !max_levenstein_distance then ask for both files).

I remember there was already such a grouping function in edonkey2000 some
time ago? It seems to be dropped because nobody used it. The automation
via the levenstein distance sounds interesting to me.

-Roland