Text only | Text with Images

PtokaX forum

Stuff => Offtopic => Topic started by: Jacko on 31 October, 2005, 02:45:59

Title: netlimiter ???
Post by: Jacko on 31 October, 2005, 02:45:59
hiya
I run a small but happy hub on 0.3.3.0 build 17.08 with robbocop V10.01e as my main script but i also have triv & funscript and a couple of other little scripts running and all is running with no probs....I would realy love to upgrade so as not to get left behind but i unfortunatly i HAVE to use netlimiter for now....do all the newer PtokaX versions have a conflict with netlimiter or have i missunerstood some of the stuff i have read ?(
Title:
Post by: hutchenky on 31 October, 2005, 02:51:16
you can run netlimiter, it works fine with ptokax 21
Title:
Post by: Jacko on 31 October, 2005, 03:01:43
thanks for such a swift reply hutchenky
would any one else back that up  ??
Title:
Post by: hutchenky on 31 October, 2005, 03:05:06
Some say netlimiter causes problems but i do believe it isn't, mostlyit are the settings and scripts causing problems, peeps saying netlimiter crashes ptokax 21 , i don't believe that, and small hub owners like ourselves need netlimiter, and i think a lot of hub owners are using it
Title:
Post by: Rincewind on 31 October, 2005, 09:51:34
I have two hubs running (my main one on 3.3.0 and my development hub on 3.3.21) and have to use Netlimiter to keep the bandwidth available for them. I have never had crashing problems with either version of PtokaX.
Title:
Post by: plop on 31 October, 2005, 18:49:48
how about using a client with limiter??
works better then netlimiter.
for example BCDC only limits up/downloads, all other hub <--> client data isn't limited.
this results you being more stable on the hubs.

plop
Title:
Post by: imby on 31 October, 2005, 19:48:13
For me netlimiter did cause a crash with the newer ptokax versions. Only occasionally though, perhaps once every few months, but that really isn't good enough for anyone who runs a hub. Soon as I uninstalled netlimiter ptokax goes back to never crashing. I now use CZDC, but not even the most recent version since it's now detectable. I don't know why PPK made it detectable, most ignorant op's will never accept it, because it has an upload limiter therefore is always bad to them.
Title:
Post by: Jacko on 31 October, 2005, 20:00:06
Quotehow about using a client with limiter??

The trouble with limter within client is a lot of hubs dont let you in...I would rather not use anything to limit but my isp snuck a 30gig per month limit on me so i feel the real fix is to get new isp  :(
Title:
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 31 October, 2005, 20:33:34
QuoteOriginally posted by imby
I don't know why PPK made it detectable, most ignorant op's will never accept it, because it has an upload limiter therefore is always bad to them.

It cannot be condemned for ruining the DC++ community. PPK said that operators who disallow the internal limiter help spread netlimiter.

Moreover, netlimiter is KNOWN to be conflicting with many p2p programs.
Title:
Post by: 6Marilyn6Manson6 on 31 October, 2005, 23:32:20
QuoteOriginally posted by Jacko
hiya
I run a small but happy hub on 0.3.3.0 build 17.08 with robbocop V10.01e as my main script but i also have triv & funscript and a couple of other little scripts running and all is running with no probs....I would realy love to upgrade so as not to get left behind but i unfortunatly i HAVE to use netlimiter for now....do all the newer PtokaX versions have a conflict with netlimiter or have i missunerstood some of the stuff i have read ?(

I use netlimiter with ptokax... and no prob :)
Title:
Post by: Jacko on 01 November, 2005, 01:43:50
thanks for SO much feedback you all   8)
Title:
Post by: imby on 02 November, 2005, 03:25:05
QuoteOriginally posted by bastya_elvtars
QuoteOriginally posted by imby
I don't know why PPK made it detectable, most ignorant op's will never accept it, because it has an upload limiter therefore is always bad to them.

It cannot be condemned for ruining the DC++ community. PPK said that operators who disallow the internal limiter help spread netlimiter.

Moreover, netlimiter is KNOWN to be conflicting with many p2p programs.

That's what I'm saying. You know I think the best way of doing this would be to include the download speed with the upload speed. Upload speed just on its own is quite meaningless.
Title:
Post by: imby on 02 November, 2005, 03:27:38
QuoteOriginally posted by Jacko
Quotehow about using a client with limiter??

The trouble with limter within client is a lot of hubs dont let you in...I would rather not use anything to limit but my isp snuck a 30gig per month limit on me so i feel the real fix is to get new isp  :(

You should fellow Uker, uncapped 8/0.8 for ?30 now.
Title:
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 02 November, 2005, 09:56:06
I thought all clients include download limiter as well. Or do you want it to show up in the tag? (Note: the DL limit is proportional to the UL limit, they aren't entirely independent.)
Title:
Post by: Pothead on 02 November, 2005, 11:16:55
QuoteOriginally posted by bastya_elvtars
I thought all clients include download limiter as well. Or do you want it to show up in the tag? (Note: the DL limit is proportional to the UL limit, they aren't entirely independent.)
In dcdm they are independent.  That allows you to set a ratio, instead of having it fixed at a maximum of 5xUL (or something like that).
This ratio shows in the tag though.  Doesn't even show the upload limit, just how much of a leecher they are.  :]
Title:
Post by: imby on 02 November, 2005, 20:10:05
QuoteOriginally posted by bastya_elvtars
I thought all clients include download limiter as well. Or do you want it to show up in the tag? (Note: the DL limit is proportional to the UL limit, they aren't entirely independent.)

Yes I'd prefer both values shown in the tag. This should of been done in DC++ from the start since the argument for limiting is a strong one as much as people hate to admit it. Ratio still isn't that meaningful. a ratio of 10 could be a 512/256 connection limited at 512/51.2 or 8/0.8 limited at a reasonable speed.

"(Note: the DL limit is proportional to the UL limit, they aren't entirely independent.)"

Depends on the client I believe, BCDC wont enforce any limit on download speed once you've set at least 8KB/s upload.
Title:
Post by: Jacko on 03 November, 2005, 01:30:03
well i didn't realy mean to cause a conflict here ..but i think its fair to say ...you guys that mod these clients could make the limits easily defineable and we could hope that other hub owners and ops will read this and welcome some sort of limiters that are defined within the client....please remember that for some users limiting is a have to do and isnt just done to leech

limiting isnt just done by leechers ..some of us HAVE to do it for the good of our hub :(
Title:
Post by: Jacko on 03 November, 2005, 01:35:07
QuoteYou should fellow Uker, uncapped 8/0.8 for ?30 now

thanks imby

I will look into that   :))
Title:
Post by: Pothead on 03 November, 2005, 10:57:27
Who's that from ? Also is it BT line :) or cable required  X(
Title:
Post by: imby on 03 November, 2005, 17:18:43
QuoteOriginally posted by Pothead
Who's that from ? Also is it BT line :) or cable required  X(

I believe we've had this discussion before, it's LLU not cable :) It's RADSL so I don't get the full speed because my line is quite long. Get around 400 / 75 KB/s

from ukonline, google it.
Text only | Text with Images