aMule Forum

English => Feature requests => Topic started by: djtm on November 14, 2004, 05:15:53 PM

Title: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on November 14, 2004, 05:15:53 PM
Hey,

I'd really like a good webserver for aMule. It could for my purpose also use a XAMPP environment. But it should be fast and not use much CPU.
(which both the current version 2.0rc7 does not do)

I think an extended AMPS would be awesome. With a couple control options for amule: (link add!!!, downloads, search).

This would make us better than the eMule! And it fits into the amuled concept, which I really like!

Thx.

DJtm
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: Jacobo221 on November 14, 2004, 05:56:03 PM
i guess you already know about aMuleWeb, don't you?
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: GonoszTopi on November 14, 2004, 06:06:51 PM
Hmm.

Anybody wants to write the mod_amule plugin for Apache?
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on November 15, 2004, 06:06:47 AM
Quote
Anybody wants to write the mod_amule plugin for Apache?

Somewhen I already proposed to use existing lightweight webserver instead of writing our own. We still have amuleweb.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on November 17, 2004, 04:09:46 PM
I think something definitely has to be done with the webserver, because I think the current one is almost unusable. It always gets aMule to hog cpu (if run on the same computer as amule) and it's pretty slow allover.

I'd really appreciate any work done in that direction, as I'm using aMule only on my server without X. And with aMule you need a good GUI. And a Web-GUI doesn't have to be ported ;)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: Kry on November 17, 2004, 05:07:53 PM
We're already working on it, you know :)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: Jacobo221 on November 17, 2004, 07:31:11 PM
> I'd really appreciate any work done in that direction

phoenix and GonoszTopi are aready working heavily on that direction. but you know, "great improvements need great changes". so don't expect it to just suddenly happen ;)

Greetings!
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on November 18, 2004, 07:58:00 PM
Cool! Thank you so much! If there's something simple involved, let me know! (and I'll help)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on December 13, 2004, 05:50:16 PM
After getting the CVS-version (20041210), the webserver is a bit better but this performing weirdly.
But I think it is some problem in the communication rather than the webserver itself.
Because some webpages load pretty quickly and the downloads one takes quite a while and currently doesn't work at all even after restarting the webserver.

It seems the whole thing is slow because it is making many single requests instead of a bundled one. Maybe it'd help if it just requested "all download status" and the whole webpage information came in one rush.
I also observed, that - at least in the old version- the webserver was much faster when run on a different host than aMule itself.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on December 13, 2004, 09:06:52 PM
Quote
It seems the whole thing is slow because it is making many single requests instead of a bundled one.

Not correct. amuleweb is requesting all data from amule in one transaction.

Quote
I also observed, that - at least in the old version- the webserver was much faster when run on a different host than aMule itself.

Oh, that can be correct. The old version made large transfers on each request, so it can matter if this transfer going between different machines, or same one.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on December 13, 2004, 09:26:46 PM
But the old version was faster when on another machine. That's what confused me.
I think it's the same with the new version.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on December 14, 2004, 07:49:18 AM
New version transfers less data. That's why you don't see the difference. It's a good thing actually :)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: hopey on December 16, 2004, 10:54:14 AM
Hi, I've been quite long time mldonkey user, from the beginning actually. It seems that the mldonkey development is now quite stalled (it is written with less known ocaml). I have few suggestions which could make me (and possibly others too) to switch to amule. First the core should be separated from the gui (if possible) in traditional linux way. Then I don't have to run my pc in runlevel 5 just to use amule. Ohter request is to have good web based interface. Is this being considered? thanks.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: deltaHF on December 16, 2004, 11:54:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by hopey
 First the core should be separated from the gui (if possible) in traditional linux way.

Quote
--enable-amule-daemon  Compile aMule daemon version
;)

cheers
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: Jacobo221 on December 16, 2004, 01:33:04 PM
Core? already splitted since... uh... rc4 maybe? no idea, quite some months ago.

"Other request is to have good web based interface."

The webserver is skinnable (see ~/.aMule/aMule.tmpl ). I've never seen mldonkey's webserver so no idea how it looks, but I'm sure you can write a skin mldonkey-like :)

Greetings and thanks!
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: hopey on December 20, 2004, 01:07:59 PM
I've been playing with amuled and amuleweb for few days now. Amuled seems to be fairly stable. With good webinterface, I don' mean anything fancy looking, I'm used to poor gui-desing of linux, but stable one.

Now I've been having some problems. When I first start the amuled and after that amuleweb, I can connet via my web browser. After a while everything stops working and I have to restart the amuled and emuleweb to get it working again for a while. Here are the messages that amuleweb is giving (I've changed my password to passwd):

Code: [Select]
Web Server: Started
aMuleweb$
WSThread: Thread started
WSThread: created service
WSThread: created socket listening on :4711
*** parsing url ?p=passwd&w=password :: field ses
*** URL parsed. returning
*** parsing url ?p=passwd&w=password :: field w
*** URL parsed. returning password
*** parsing url ?p=passwd&w=password :: field p
*** URL parsed. returning passwd
*** parsing url ?p=passwd&w=password :: field w
*** URL parsed. returning password
*** replaced session with -890091799
***** logged in, getting page password
***** session is 0
*** parsing url /favicon.ico :: field ses
*** URL parsed. returning
*** parsing url /favicon.ico :: field w
*** URL parsed. returning
*** parsing url /favicon.ico :: field ses
*** URL parsed. returning

Here is what amuled gives (what I guess is related to the amuleweb):

Code: [Select]
CServerSocket: connection closed
CServerSocket: destroying socket 0x9fe9490
CServerSocket: terminated
CServerSocket: destroying socket 0x9fe96c8
CServerSocket: destroying socket 0xa017198

I forgot to mention that I'm using aMule-2.0.0rc7 that I've build wiht configure options:

./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-optimize --disable-debug --enable-wxcas --enable-cas --enable-alc --enable-alcc --enable-amule-daemon --enable-amulecmd --enable-amulecmdgui --enable-webserver --enable-webservergui --enable-amule-daemon


It seems that the web interface is bit more stable now that the core is finished most of my hash files. I still have to log in again every now and then...
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on December 20, 2004, 02:12:05 PM
Quote
Here is what amuled gives (what I guess is related to the amuleweb):

No, as name suggest, it's related to connection to server (ed2k server). Those messages means that connection to server has timed out and terminated.
Try cvs snapshot - both webserver and amuled improved since rc7
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: hopey on December 20, 2004, 06:17:36 PM
Yes, the cvs seems to work better. Thanks!
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on December 21, 2004, 03:46:18 PM
The CVS version worked really well on localhost for me now.
I still have to check with different hosts.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: skolnick on December 21, 2004, 05:29:41 PM
With different hosts the performance is also better, is faster, and for me, it produces statistics graphics now (I know, I know, configuration parameters, but I used the same as with RC7, and had never seen stats graphics generated before). Only problem is still givin incomplete files sometimes. Almost always, but I understand it's being reviewed that code now.

Regards.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: djtm on December 21, 2004, 10:10:54 PM
Yeah, It works great now!

Awesome work!!!

Sorry I couldn't say that until now, but I just finished the CVS install.
:)

You guys are great.  :))  Huge thanks to the developers!

Now we could move the entire eMule development over to aMule...  to reach a broader base :)   :D 8)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: Kry on December 22, 2004, 01:14:44 AM
So, what's left on webserver? can I move to amuled issues now?
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: skolnick on December 22, 2004, 01:32:37 AM
Only missing thing I have noticed in this new CVS (20041221) version webserver, is the lack of ability to sort the columns in revers order. You sort the columns, but when click again on an already sorted column, it will sort again in the same order, instead of reversing, like emule does. Other than that, it seems to work OK, I'll post tomorrow, to tell if it works from another computer different than the one running amule.

Thanks for everything.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on December 22, 2004, 06:29:27 AM
skolnick: please tell me where did you see it ? Which column ? And I will fix it right away :)
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: skolnick on December 22, 2004, 03:06:39 PM
First of all, I'm using CVS 20041221, have not tried RC8. The bug happens with all the columns I have tested. Progress, and fileName for sure. I'm not sure about others. The problem seems to be that once the column has been ordered, then when you click again on it, the value for "reverse" on the link, is always false. It's never true, so it always orders the same way.

Another bug I just noticed is that when you order a column, it gets ordered, but when the webserver does an automatic refresh, every 120 seconds, files are ordered again in fileName order, from A to Z.

Also (sorry to bother so much) the server doesn't remember the last sorting setting, i.e. I log in, order a column, then log out. When I log in again, everything is ordered (again) by filename, A to Z. Any other test you want me to do, I would be happy to help.

Regards.

Skolnick.

Edit: Just wanted to tell you I really appreciate the fix you (or somebody on the team) did for showing complete files through slow connections. It works perfectly for me now.
Title: Re: Better WebServer
Post by: lfroen on December 22, 2004, 03:32:49 PM
Quote
The bug happens with all the columns I have tested. Progress, and fileName for sure

I will check it.

Quote
the value for "reverse" on the link, is always false.

Looks like bug.

Quote
but when the webserver does an automatic refresh

Looks like bug too.

Quote
server doesn't remember the last sorting setting, i.e. I log in, order a column, then log out. When I log in again, everything is ordered (again) by filename,

This is ok. Server doesn't remember things after you log out. Not yet anyway. Sorting by name is default.