Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

time to upgrade from k++ to k-lite 2.6... new supernodes etc

Discussions about the FastTrack network and any clients that connect to it
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

time to upgrade from k++ to k-lite 2.6... new supernodes etc

Postby moculon » Sun May 30, 2004 7:18 am

http://www.fasttrackhelp.com/developmen ... ex.php?c=3

found this link, it is still in development, but it seems that with all the new supernodes and magnet support that k++ isn't fully up with it will be a good idea to switch to a new k-lite like this based on kmd 2.6.

of course there is kmagnet which will allow you to use magnet links with k++ but that doesn't solve the connectivity to new supernodes etc issues.
'just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there' radiohead.
moculon
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:36 pm

Postby KLITETOOLS » Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:18 am

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4466have a look there and you see the klt k++ handles magnet links also.

and the supernodes being blocked are bs. don't belive everything your hear.
User avatar
KLITETOOLS
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:18 pm

tx

Postby moculon » Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:39 pm

thanks for getting back on this klite, i'm a big fan of your klitetools release of k++ some of the tools a lot of people will really find useful if they've not heard of them before. plus it keeps the project alive which is great. good to hear the supernodes thing is bs. i don't really wanna change to a less stable hack.
'just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there' radiohead.
moculon
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:36 pm

Postby KLITETOOLS » Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:07 am

you are welcome boss should the older versions be blocked then we will put out something that won't be blocked :D
User avatar
KLITETOOLS
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:18 pm

Postby desolator » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:20 pm

Why don't they just make a version that doesn't let those anoying ppl with dialup on at all? ya, I know that 80% of the internet users in the US connect with dialup but still, all they do is bog down the network.
desolator
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:12 pm

Postby j_dogg » Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:58 am

desolator wrote:Why don't they just make a version that doesn't let those anoying ppl with dialup on at all? ya, I know that 80% of the internet users in the US connect with dialup but still, all they do is bog down the network.


OooooK, sorry to flame, but that was one of THE DUMBEST things I've ever seen posted....:!:

Being a dial up user myself, I take great offense. But to answer your question fairly, as there are suposedly no stupid questions, here goes...

:idea: Dial up users, for example a user on 56K have symmetrical connections, whatever they take, they give back. So if you are to argue that this is not so, because they could be leechers, well so could broadband users.
:idea: Dial up users upload download ratio is usually much higher than that of users of adsl, simply because adsl users have assymetric connections, it is impossible for them to upload faster than they download.
:idea: With multi-source downloading, dial up users help greatly to speed up your download, especially because 80% (according to you) of internet users use dial up. Which would infer that a very high percent of them use p2p as well.
:idea: Dial up users, just like any other user, can contain rare content that you may desire. Now if a peer has a file that you want, and you can't get it anywhere else but form a dial up users, then you be thankful as you get that file at 5KB/s...
:idea: This kind of seperatism is bullshit, you want to ban dial up users, next thing, T1 users will be making plans to kick all adsl users.
:idea: Banning dial up users from a p2p network, would cause the network to be slower, due to the fact that without them, the majority left would be adsl users, and as I said before, they have the capability to download more than upload, so a p2p network with no anti leech features would be greatly affected, presumably seeing a massive increase in queue's.
:idea: Nobody connecting to a network properly, and sharing files, and downloading as much as they upload is 'boggin it down'.
:idea: Banning dial up users would also be impossible, you can't ban users based on the speed of thier internet connection. On a multi client network such as FT is now, banning dial up users from one client wouldn't do shit to speed up the network, even is succesfully doing so would actually result in that. As there as many other clients they could use to connect to FT.

So next time you feel like getting all high and mighty desolator, think about what you're saying...
j_dogg
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:47 am

time to upgrade from k++ to k-lite 2.6... new supernodes etc

Postby SlyckChuck » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:07 am

Des, Heres a gold nugget of wisdom. It takes all kinds to make the net work. Some can afford a fast connect and some can not. For those that can not you are so willing to sacrifice them? P2p exists for all, not just a select few. Maybe a rare file that you only dream of getting is only shared by a slow connect, you never know. To sacrifice them??? Shame on you!!


Nuff said
The 80's Still Rule
User avatar
SlyckChuck
 
Posts: 7025
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: On Earth

Postby Digital Nirvana » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:00 pm

j_dogg wrote:
desolator wrote:Why don't they just make a version that doesn't let those anoying ppl with dialup on at all? ya, I know that 80% of the internet users in the US connect with dialup but still, all they do is bog down the network.


OooooK, sorry to flame, but that was one of THE DUMBEST things I've ever seen posted....:!:

Being a dial up user myself, I take great offense. But to answer your question fairly, as there are suposedly no stupid questions, here goes...

:idea: Dial up users, for example a user on 56K have symmetrical connections, whatever they take, they give back. So if you are to argue that this is not so, because they could be leechers, well so could broadband users.
:idea: Dial up users upload download ratio is usually much higher than that of users of adsl, simply because adsl users have assymetric connections, it is impossible for them to upload faster than they download.
:idea: With multi-source downloading, dial up users help greatly to speed up your download, especially because 80% (according to you) of internet users use dial up. Which would infer that a very high percent of them use p2p as well.
:idea: Dial up users, just like any other user, can contain rare content that you may desire. Now if a peer has a file that you want, and you can't get it anywhere else but form a dial up users, then you be thankful as you get that file at 5KB/s...
:idea: This kind of seperatism is bullshit, you want to ban dial up users, next thing, T1 users will be making plans to kick all adsl users.
:idea: Banning dial up users from a p2p network, would cause the network to be slower, due to the fact that without them, the majority left would be adsl users, and as I said before, they have the capability to download more than upload, so a p2p network with no anti leech features would be greatly affected, presumably seeing a massive increase in queue's.
:idea: Nobody connecting to a network properly, and sharing files, and downloading as much as they upload is 'boggin it down'.
:idea: Banning dial up users would also be impossible, you can't ban users based on the speed of thier internet connection. On a multi client network such as FT is now, banning dial up users from one client wouldn't do shit to speed up the network, even is succesfully doing so would actually result in that. As there as many other clients they could use to connect to FT.

So next time you feel like getting all high and mighty desolator, think about what you're saying...



Actually, I have DSl and my upload is only about 20kbs slower than my download...that may seem like alot to a dialup user like yourself, but its not really...whats the average dial up users download speed, about 5-6kbs and there upload is about 2-3 or less..banning dialup user, would not slow down the network, lmao thats very funny..but i am against that idea anyways. it'll never happen and its a stupid idea. But i see no reason y you are defending dial-up ...dsl is getting rather cheap these days, and uless your in an area where its not available...i see no reason not to upgrade.. :?
Digital Nirvana
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:25 pm

Postby iNaNimAtE » Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:25 pm

Digital Nirvana wrote:Actually, I have DSl and my upload is only about 20kbs slower than my download

Then you have sDSL.

Digital Nirvana wrote:whats the average dial up users download speed, about 5-6kbs and there upload is about 2-3 or less

No, it is the same. 56Kbps both ways. However, 56Kbps divided amongst a number of users can lead to something like 2-3KBps per user.

Digital Nirvana wrote:banning dialup user, would not slow down the network

Wrong. Ever used eMule?

Digital Nirvana wrote:But i see no reason y you are defending dial-up ...dsl is getting rather cheap these days, and uless your in an area where its not available...i see no reason not to upgrade.. :?

Bingo; you got the answer. Broadband is not available in many parts of the world, including the US, and that is why many people are still on Dial-Up. j_dogg happens to live in an area of New Zealand where Broadband is not available--for a fair price anyway. You say DSL is getting rather cheap, but you must remember, it is only cheap for places that have many ISPs. Supply and demand my friend, supply and demand. If your area only has one Broadband ISP, and many users who want to use it, then the ISP can easily milk every penny out of the customer. Here, it is about $40:$10 (DSL:Dial-Up), but other places, it can be around $70:$10.
Attention P2P goers! Learn how to tag your media!
User avatar
iNaNimAtE
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Olà.

Postby j_dogg » Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:30 am

Thanks for explaining that iNaNimAtE, need I say more?
j_dogg
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:47 am

Postby iNaNimAtE » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:22 am

j_dogg wrote:Thanks for explaining that iNaNimAtE, need I say more?

Let's hope not...
Attention P2P goers! Learn how to tag your media!
User avatar
iNaNimAtE
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Olà.

Postby Unbiased_Opinion » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:49 am

desolator wrote:Why don't they just make a version that doesn't let those anoying ppl with dialup on at all? ya, I know that 80% of the internet users in the US connect with dialup but still, all they do is bog down the network.


Digital Nirvana wrote:banning dialup user, would not slow down the network


Sorry, but I just had to post.

What do you two idiots think multisource is (errmmm...what could it be?).

For example, have you ever seen how many sources you download from on eMule or BT or any other p2p app that supports multi-source downloads.? (which k-lite most certainly does, even though I think its crap anyways) Alot of them happen to be dialup but if you add all of their connections up......

Ah, the hell with it, I am not wasting another breathe on you guys, since you obvisouly know nothing about p2p protocol.

EDIT: Too many beers can't type, 2nd time Editing this. :D
User avatar
Unbiased_Opinion
 
Posts: 5469
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:33 am
Location: US

Postby bittorrent108 » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:59 am

why do u neeed to download klite - wont kceasy do?
...for everything else there's bittorrent! ;)
User avatar
bittorrent108
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:54 am

Postby j_dogg » Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:50 am

Yes, KCeasy is quite a good app...

Yet U_O was simply using K-Lite (Or FT) as an example of a p2p app that utilizes multi-source downloading, as many networks do these day's...
j_dogg
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:47 am

Postby HEAT84 » Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:18 am

The fastest you can upload with a 56k modem is 33.6K. Also the fastest you can DL with a 56K is actually 53.3K despite what it says in the transfer speed column in Kazaa.
User avatar
HEAT84
Official Slyck Conspiracy Nut
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:41 am
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby tm, » Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:45 am

HEAT84 wrote:The fastest you can upload with a 56k modem is 33.6K.


There are two types of 56k protocols: v.90 (which incorporated 2 pre-existing unofficial protocols) and the newer v.92. The maximum upstream bandwidth of v.90 was set at 33.6K, but for v.92 this was increased to 48Kilobits/sec.

Unfortunately, since the introduction of broadband, dialup service has become a neglected stepchild, and a lot of isps which had in the past quickly updated to the faster dialup standards when they became available - have not updated to v.92. It seems that none of the lower cost or free dialup isps use v.92 equipment - even high-priced AOL does not offer v.92, at least in some areas.

One thing to consider is that in places that are too remote to receive broadband often get very slow dialup speeds because of poor line conditions due to the long distances involved. People who live "in the boonies" will often get much lower bandwidth than 56k allows, sometimes less than half the speed of 56k, but of course the same bandwidth both ways.

I agree that it would be better in many ways if broadband users and dialup users were on separate networks. It is the broadband users with their grossly asymmetric upload/download ratios that create the horrendously long queues on networks such as ed2k.
tm,
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:23 am

origins of symmetry

Postby moculon » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:16 pm

well if ed2k qs were caused purely by the asymmetric connections then the avg u/l on the network would equal the average d/l. this probably isn't the case as most people upload way more than they download. the reason this happens is because it's part system spreads the parts u share very widely (which improves network retention of files etc etc). however this spread causes parts to be shared to users who give up (i myself have given up on something on emule and found it somewhere else in the mean time). so huge amounts of your b/w go to people who will never even get the file.
'just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there' radiohead.
moculon
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:36 pm

no need to upgrade!

Postby fire01 » Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:35 pm

K-lite k++ v 2.4.3 is working fine now is doesn't have the problem of sticking whit 99000 users. Buy the way has anyone else notice the huge amount of gigabyte on the network 41 millions gb the companies must be spending time sending fake dvd movies.
fire01
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:50 am

Re: origins of symmetry

Postby BigWillyStyle42 » Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:45 am

moculon wrote:well if ed2k qs were caused purely by the asymmetric connections then the avg u/l on the network would equal the average d/l. this probably isn't the case as most people upload way more than they download. the reason this happens is because it's part system spreads the parts u share very widely (which improves network retention of files etc etc). however this spread causes parts to be shared to users who give up (i myself have given up on something on emule and found it somewhere else in the mean time). so huge amounts of your b/w go to people who will never even get the file.

So if the average download speed doesn't equal the average upload speed where does the extra bandwidth go?
BigWillyStyle42
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:22 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Postby ElsaPaak » Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:43 am

Wow guys, this has really been educational for a little grrrl like me :twisted: but anyways somethings i don't or just seem plain stupid to me:

What this BS about upload must be equeal to download for modemmers? This is clearly a load of crap. If i use KAzaa, winmx or any non-eMule app, i don't have to up load at all and can still download. Perhaps the speed is the same, although some of u dispute that.

One thing I want your opinion on: Do u think that with a modem, one can upload with the same speed as one downloads? That is, can i up and download at the same time, and do both at this theoretical speed of 5 kb/s?

I've always thought so, but sometimes you meet these nincompoops who think you downloading from them will affect their own download negatively. I just wanna be sure.
tnx.
.............\\\|////.......
.............\\ - - //.....
.............( @ @ )......
+oOOo== (_)== oOOo===+
"Anchovies, anchovies, you're so delicious, I love you more than all the other fishes" - Dawn Summers.
User avatar
ElsaPaak
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:06 am

Postby j_dogg » Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:33 am

Of course for you it will be different than with the average of the network. And regarding eMule, the reason you have to have a more equal upload/download ratio for that is the anti-leech features it implements.
j_dogg
 
Posts: 2495
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:47 am

Postby iNaNimAtE » Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:02 pm

ElsaPaak wrote:One thing I want your opinion on: Do u think that with a modem, one can upload with the same speed as one downloads? That is, can i up and download at the same time, and do both at this theoretical speed of 5 kb/s?

I've always thought so, but sometimes you meet these nincompoops who think you downloading from them will affect their own download negatively. I just wanna be sure.
tnx.

It's not an opinion--it's a fact. 56Kbps is a symmetrical connection having both 56Kbps (7KBps) downstream and upstream. Fundamentally, you can be maxing out your bandwidth going both ways at the same time, but of course there are small things that will affect it (first, you might not even connect at 56Kbps in the first place, overhead, other tasks, et cetera), but you get the idea.
Attention P2P goers! Learn how to tag your media!
User avatar
iNaNimAtE
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Olà.

Postby BigWillyStyle42 » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:14 pm

iNaNimAtE wrote:
ElsaPaak wrote:One thing I want your opinion on: Do u think that with a modem, one can upload with the same speed as one downloads? That is, can i up and download at the same time, and do both at this theoretical speed of 5 kb/s?

I've always thought so, but sometimes you meet these nincompoops who think you downloading from them will affect their own download negatively. I just wanna be sure.
tnx.

It's not an opinion--it's a fact. 56Kbps is a symmetrical connection having both 56Kbps (7KBps) downstream and upstream. Fundamentally, you can be maxing out your bandwidth going both ways at the same time, but of course there are small things that will affect it (first, you might not even connect at 56Kbps in the first place, overhead, other tasks, et cetera), but you get the idea.

56K modems aren't able to connect at 56Kbps nor do they have symmetrical bandwidth for upstream/downstream.
BigWillyStyle42
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:22 pm
Location: Rockville, MD

Postby iNaNimAtE » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:23 pm

BigWillyStyle42 wrote:56K modems aren't able to connect at 56Kbps nor do they have symmetrical bandwidth for upstream/downstream.

Then what is their bandwidth?
Attention P2P goers! Learn how to tag your media!
User avatar
iNaNimAtE
 
Posts: 5108
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Olà.

Postby HEAT84 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:00 am

tm wrote:
HEAT84 wrote:The fastest you can upload with a 56k modem is 33.6K.


There are two types of 56k protocols: v.90 (which incorporated 2 pre-existing unofficial protocols) and the newer v.92. The maximum upstream bandwidth of v.90 was set at 33.6K, but for v.92 this was increased to 48Kilobits/sec.


I never knew that. I thought V.92 only had to do with modem on hold.
[Under Construction]
User avatar
HEAT84
Official Slyck Conspiracy Nut
 
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:41 am
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Next

Return to FastTrack/Kazaa

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com