RE: [Mldonkey-users] Connected to no edonkey server

[Fortin Denis]

Le jeu 16/10/2003 à 15:14, Loon, O.P. van a écrit :
> >
> >Hi, 
> >
> >On Thursday 16 of October 2003 13:36, vaab wrote:
> >> Precedent version of mldonkey(2.5-3) was so slow that i've stopped using
> >> it (never more than 5 Ko/s, and idle most of the time). I kept coming on
> >> the website waiting for changes. I'm happy to see that the project is
> >> not dead.
> >>
> >> I've upgraded to 2.5-4, and download seems a little bit better. Not
> >> extraordinary (2 to 10 Ko/s almost continuously), but it has completed
> >> several files.
> >> 2.5-3 had the bad habit of draining all my memory (512 Mo RAM + 120 Mo
> >> cache), and after that was killed by the system. (a Linux in LFS flavour).
> >>
> >> 2.5-4 seems better... while i didn't really tested it in the same
> >> conditions :  i figured that when limiting the download file limit
> >> (max_concurrent_downloads) to 20, I stopped the memory expansion to an
> >> average of 80 Mo AND assured a rate to a good continuous 2 Ko/s. That's
> >> really better than 2.5-3. I used to have max_concurrent_downloads=100.
> >>
> >> I remember days when i downloaded at 50 Ko/s with this connection and in
> >> the same network conditions (same route/firewall/rules...) with the
> >> first mldonkey 2.0. (I'm on ADSL 512/256.)
> >>
> >> I've posted in different forum without much results, only certitude is
> >> that it wasn't the only problem of mldonkey. Thus, i continuously
> >> witnessed some post claiming 50 Ko/s or similar good health of their
> >> mldonkey.
> >>
> >> Don't misinterpret my mail. This is not to blame mldonkey. Maybe just a
> >> way to say that I hope a lot on the future of the project. I've choosed
> >> to stay on the train. I might not be the only one that have similar
> >> feelings as i saw in the recent "getting frustated" thread on this list.
> >>
> >Same here. I tested amule for a few days (due to "client too old" msgs in 
> >MLdonkey) and it's no match for mldonkey. I didn't download a single file in 
> >3 days. I couldn't wait to see the new version and I'm glad that project is 
> >ALIVE!
> >
> Me too !!
> >
> >> I don't know if this is normal, but mldonkey is rarely connected to any
> >> edonkey server. The server list contains pages of edonkey servers. And
> >> when i ask to connect to more server, this has no effect... If this info
> >> can help to find bugs ?
> >
> >I did upgrade yesteday and currently I'm not satisfied with number of 
> >connected servers on eDonkey network. MlDonkey does not seem to connect to 
> >any server if bittorrent is enabled. I had one bittorrent download when 
> >migrating to 2.5-4. Though bittorrent itself was downloading just fine with 
> >approx, speed of 15k.
> >
> 
> Confirmed. I also get know connections with most eDonkey servers with 
> bittorrent enabled. Only with a some specific ones, and then again only 
> sometimes.
> 
> >BT download itself is another strange thing. This file I'm DLing is over 
> >2Gigs 
> >and is currently at 101.4%!! Dl size: 2362253312 bytes of 2317242368 bytes
> >Most of the chunks are verified and some in the end are partial or missing. 
> >File keeps on downloading over 100%, but not after I restart MLdonkey then 
> >it 
> >falls below 90% and continues there.
> >
> >I'm about to diss this file and disable BT plugin. 
> >>
> >> thx for reading my bad english.
> >>
> >> Vaab
My guess : 
There's no connection control in bittorrent, so you will probably exceed
max_opened_connections. The problem is that lugdunum servers
will try to initiate a fake client connection... which you will have
problem to answer because of too much opened connections.
Since suxxx's patch use the same trick than patch 1762 to detect 
servers' fake client connection, it should be a good thing to do what
patch 1762 did : bypass connection control when it's a server.

Denis