Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morse]

Sometimes I need my upload channel be as free as possible, but I also don't want that it affected the download speed of amule. So it would be nice if I could bind upload limit to current download speed, so when amule is waiting in queue, the channel would be free for other services, and in (relatively rare) moments when amule is downloading in full speed, it would also upload at the same speed (so it would be fair participation in p2p network).

[btkaos]

What you propose is kinda weird, and will not work well with the current credit system *mule uses.

If you need to reclaim some upload, you have two choices: either you temporally down the upload speed, or use ipfilter to setup a traffic control queue in order to give more priority to some particular traffic.

[GonoszTopi]

Sometimes I need my upload channel be as free as possible, but I also don't want that it affected the download speed of amule. So it would be nice if I could bind upload limit to current download speed, so when amule is waiting in queue, the channel would be free for other services, and in (relatively rare) moments when amule is downloading in full speed, it would also upload at the same speed (so it would be fair participation in p2p network).

No. Widespread application of this idea would cause a quick death of the network.

[Morse]

No. Widespread application of this idea would cause a quick death of the network.

Why do you think that?

Let's follow the behavior of this feature: I set download limit to zero (no limit) and upload limit to (for instance) 10 Kbs. When download speed is small I upload 10 Kbs, but then, download starts to increase, and when it hit 10 Kbs the upload limit also starts to increase. Increase, not decrease, so i'm starting to give to the network more, then I would do otherwise. Why it would be bad?

[myth]

Well, see me. I usually only upload 24 hours a day. With my full Upload. Why should I reduce it?

[GonoszTopi]

Let's follow the behavior of this feature: I set download limit to zero (no limit) and upload limit to (for instance) 10 Kbs. When download speed is small I upload 10 Kbs, but then, download starts to increase, and when it hit 10 Kbs the upload limit also starts to increase. Increase, not decrease, so i'm starting to give to the network more, then I would do otherwise. Why it would be bad?

That would require a soft and a hard limit for upload (think of ADSL users where upload limit is only a fraction of download limit). With all of the confusion it would introduce (e.g. should download limit be capped by soft or hard upload limit?). Also consider that your upload speed also depends on your downloaders - how fast they can accept data.

No. Widespread application of this idea would cause a quick death of the network.

Why do you think that?

Because I would set soft upload limit to 1 kB/s (thus still letting aMule start some downloads, without unnecessarily occupying my upload bandwidth), and when some download starts, upload limit would also increase to the hard limit - say - 10 kB/s (which already means unlimited download). Perfect for leechers.

[^marcell^]

That would require a soft and a hard limit for upload ...

Exactly, because if you start the application there's no download and thus you wouldn't upload either. If other clients do the same the network is dead.

Because I would set soft upload limit to 1 kB/s (thus still letting aMule start some downloads, without unnecessarily occupying my upload bandwidth), and when some download starts, upload limit would also increase to the hard limit - say - 10 kB/s (which already means unlimited download). Perfect for leechers.

Almost the same situation.