aMule Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We're back! (IN POG FORM)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Releaser function?!  (Read 6019 times)

KeRn

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Releaser function?!
« on: August 08, 2005, 12:02:17 PM »

Hey,

a usefull function for releaser like 'share the needed' would be damn nice in amule. Also 'hide the sources' won't be wrong.

cu
Logged

spiorf

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2005, 12:27:04 PM »

and this function what will do? how amule will choose which files needs to be shared? ?(
Logged
Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems...

KeRn

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2005, 01:05:41 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by spiorf
and this function what will do? how amule will choose which files needs to be shared? ?(
no - not  files but needed part/chunks of a file you've on PS e.g!
Logged

wuischke

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 183
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2005, 01:43:57 PM »

You mean Hide Overshare? [After uploading a chunk f.e. 3 times it will be hidden to share the other chunks]
And share only the need is similar, but it hides the chunks, which are well distributed.
I don't like this features, because you may think, that the file is incomplete seeing the red bar.
But Selective Chunk Sharing would be a good option. (Usually the client ask for a certain chunk, but with scs the mule selects the chunk to upload to the client.)
Logged

Kry

  • Ex-developer
  • Retired admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: -665
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5795
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2005, 03:40:37 PM »

I don't like any way of disturbing the protocol like that.
Logged

GonoszTopi

  • The current man in charge of most things.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 169
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2685
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2005, 03:45:47 PM »

Imagine how would "
  • Download first and last chunk first" work, if all your sources decide to give you some other part instead of what you asked.
Logged
concordia cum veritate

lionel77

  • Provider of Mac builds, Forum Mod
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1107
  • Mac OS X 10.4 (Power Mac G5)
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2005, 07:07:39 PM »

i think there are two different issues involved:

1) original releaser of a file does not want to be recognizable as the only complete source
to achieve this some emule mods have an option for only reporting single chunks to individual clients and thereby uploading a different chunk to each client. after each chunk has been uploaded 1-3 times, all chunks are revealed.
a byproduct of this feature is that the file is better spread b/c not everybody is downloading the first and last chunk from the releaser.
problems:
- it's much less obvious who the releaser is, but you could still figure this out if you used multiple clients and compared what chunks other clients reported to them
- it's pretty bad if somebody does not know better and turns on this feature for a regularly shared file (b/c chunk x+1 does not get uploaded before chunk x is uploaded, and if chunk x is well distributed but x+1 is not, this would cause big problems)

2) chunks that are rare should be given preference over more common chunks
i think this is actually a pretty good idea. oftentimes you have only very few complete sources and a number of sources that all have the same chunks. when you just started your download there is a good chance that you will download a common chunk from a complete source and not a chunk that you could not have gotten from another source. so in a sense you are wasting your upload slot with the complete source.
giving preference to rare chunks makes a lot of sense, but which chunk to upload should not be the uploaders call to make, b/c this does mess with the protocol and other functions as kry and gonosztopi have pointed out. instead, something like this should be implemented in the downloading client.
so the download priorities would be: first/last chunk (if "download first and last chunk first" is enabled) and then chunks should be downloaded based on how many (better: how few) other clients have the same chunk.
potential problem: this would put more strain on the cpu, which could be problematic for older machines, so it should be an optional feature
Logged
Current aMule CVS builds for OS X can be found here.

Kry

  • Ex-developer
  • Retired admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: -665
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5795
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2005, 07:43:15 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by lionel77
2) chunks that are rare should be given preference over more common chunks
[...]but which chunk to upload should not be the uploaders call to make, b/c this does mess with the protocol and other functions as kry and gonosztopi have pointed out. instead, something like this should be implemented in the downloading client.
[...]

That's actually how it's done now.
Logged

lionel77

  • Provider of Mac builds, Forum Mod
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1107
  • Mac OS X 10.4 (Power Mac G5)
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2005, 07:49:31 PM »

i didn't realize that. well, "another job well done" i'd say... ;)
Logged
Current aMule CVS builds for OS X can be found here.

KeRn

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2005, 12:22:02 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by Kry
Quote
Originally posted by lionel77
2) chunks that are rare should be given preference over more common chunks
[...]but which chunk to upload should not be the uploaders call to make, b/c this does mess with the protocol and other functions as kry and gonosztopi have pointed out. instead, something like this should be implemented in the downloading client.
[...]

That's actually how it's done now.

alright; thats ok than and lets forget the 2th question about hidding source :) but it would be good to know that ppl dont know who is the full source.
Logged

Kry

  • Ex-developer
  • Retired admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: -665
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5795
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2005, 08:24:08 PM »

Just curious, why?
Logged

KeRn

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2005, 09:19:50 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by Kry
Just curious, why?
just imagine; you're releaser and you realase 10 new files (rar/avi/mpg/...) files in a week (sometimes also some hot releases) and we both know that anti-p2p-companies do not sleep. Thats rise a danger imo to be a full source from the beginning.
Logged

Vollstrecker

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 67
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1549
  • Unofficial Debian Packager
    • http://vollstreckernet.de
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2005, 09:21:54 PM »

They look for all people with these files. Partially or Full doesn't matter. You have it, you broke their law. Even if the file is a fake, because you wanted this file, and uploaded the parts.
Logged
Homefucking is killing prostitution

Kry

  • Ex-developer
  • Retired admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: -665
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5795
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2005, 01:09:19 AM »

Well, it's all your fault for sharing copyrighted material. I wouldn't help anyone trying to hide that fact.
Logged

KeRn

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Re: Releaser function?!
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2005, 05:34:05 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by Kry
Well, it's all your fault for sharing copyrighted material. I wouldn't help anyone trying to hide that fact.
i didn't talk about myself (we need not to talk about what we'll use ed2k for) ; ok - just forget that one; good to know that 'share the needed' is enabled by default :)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2