PtokaX forum

Development Section => PtokaX Development Versions => Topic started by: PPK on 28 May, 2006, 16:37:23

Title: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 28 May, 2006, 16:37:23
New testing version, maybe last before release :P
1 ) With Lua 5.0.2 (http://www.PtokaX.org/files/0.3.4.0j0.dbg.7z).
2 ) With Lua 5.1 (http://www.PtokaX.org/files/0.3.4.0j1.dbg.7z).

Full online PtokaX changelog is available in Wiki (http://www.ptxwiki.psycho-chihuahua.net/doku.php/changelogs/ptokax/changes_after_0.330_15.31).
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 28 May, 2006, 16:52:24
Call the final 0.3.5.0, it is worth it.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 28 May, 2006, 17:37:39
Why not 0.4.0.0  ??? ;D
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: 6Marilyn6Manson6 on 28 May, 2006, 17:50:04
Why not 1.0.0.0 hihiihihihih  ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 28 May, 2006, 18:08:33
Why not 0.4.0.0  ??? ;D

I did not wanna be impolite. :-)

Just wanted to suggest the usual versioning convention. :-)

Microversion=bugfix etc.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: blackwings on 28 May, 2006, 19:17:37
PPK, could you explain what this does? =
Added: Max limit (16) for script bots to disalloq fake users.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 28 May, 2006, 20:03:59
On RegBot it check if here is already 16 scripted bots on hub, and if yes then not add it. I added it to disallow hubs (like the one on hublist.org (http://www.hublist.org/?p=hub&id=175103) running PtokaX and have 5000 users, but only 40 real) to fake users  ::)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 28 May, 2006, 20:27:01
On RegBot it check if here is already 16 scripted bots on hub, and if yes then not add it. I added it to disallow hubs (like the one on hublist.org (http://www.hublist.org/?p=hub&id=175103) running PtokaX and have 5000 users, but only 40 real) to fake users? ::)

LOL PPK: ssshhhh  :-X  :-X      ;D  ;D
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 28 May, 2006, 20:33:44
Talking seriously: it's a hublist.org pinger problem, not Ptokax.

That pinger checks also BOTs.....others hublist (as dreamland) don't do that.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 28 May, 2006, 20:47:07
Other hublists doesn't ping your hub as hublist.org does,
they retrieve your user count if you enable hublist registration in PtokaX
and PtokaX reports only real users to hublists..

That's absolutely not a honest way -SkA-, you know it...


But, if someone wants to fake users; script bots is not the only way..



Though, thanks PPK, for this step against fakers  ;)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 29 May, 2006, 07:50:09
Other hublists doesn't ping your hub as hublist.org does,
they retrieve your user count if you enable hublist registration in PtokaX
and PtokaX reports only real users to hublists..

That's absolutely not a honest way -SkA-, you know it...

I perfectly know that's not correct.

Come on guys, It was only a try to re-populate my hub since it was included in that list (http://www.ai1.it/public/forum/viewtopic.php?t=328) and thanks to that bad person I lost all my users.

btw, now "fake-hub" is closed.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 08:31:06
Some of my users complained about the stuff below, and switching back to 0.3.4.0i solved that..

What may be wrong PPK?

Code: [Select]
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 67.70.91.186:18778 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 213.250.11.130:19889 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 85.178.16.223:666 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 60.48.108.222:14375 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 24.155.98.160:4923 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 195.174.63.14:26656 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:15] *** Detected search spam from: 83.250.89.185:7143 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 82.72.120.41:444 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 85.105.70.155:11700 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 212.54.11.36:7650 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 218.174.159.93:4505 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 203.217.36.227:22865 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 85.101.198.162:8001 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 87.17.125.42:9357 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 85.226.42.166:6600 (Nick Unknown)
[09:54:16] *** Detected search spam from: 160.75.114.195:8303 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 67.70.91.186:18778 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 195.174.63.14:26656 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 213.250.11.130:19889 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 85.178.16.223:666 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 83.250.89.185:7143 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 60.48.108.222:14375 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:16] *** Detected search spam from: 24.155.98.160:4923 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:18] *** Detected search spam from: 212.54.11.36:7650 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:20] *** Detected search spam from: 85.226.42.166:6600 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:20] *** Detected search spam from: 160.75.114.195:8303 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 82.72.120.41:444 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 85.105.70.155:11700 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 218.174.159.93:4505 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 203.217.36.227:22865 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 85.101.198.162:8001 (Nick Unknown)
[09:56:21] *** Detected search spam from: 87.17.125.42:9357 (Nick Unknown)
[09:57:40] *** Detected search spam from: 85.108.194.17:13539 (Nick Unknown)
[09:57:40] *** Detected search spam from: 84.52.136.7:1411 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:24] *** Detected search spam from: 60.48.108.222:14375 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:24] *** Detected search spam from: 213.250.11.130:19889 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:24] *** Detected search spam from: 85.178.16.223:666 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:24] *** Detected search spam from: 212.54.11.36:7650 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 24.155.98.160:4923 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 67.70.91.186:18778 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 195.174.63.14:26656 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 83.250.89.185:7143 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 82.72.120.41:444 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 85.105.70.155:11700 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 218.174.159.93:4505 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 203.217.36.227:22865 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 85.101.198.162:8001 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 87.17.125.42:9357 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 160.75.114.195:8303 (Nick Unknown)
[09:58:25] *** Detected search spam from: 85.226.42.166:6600 (Nick Unknown)
[09:59:41] *** Detected search spam from: 85.108.194.17:13539 (Nick Unknown)
[09:59:41] *** Detected search spam from: 84.52.136.7:1411 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:25] *** Detected search spam from: 213.250.11.130:19889 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:25] *** Detected search spam from: 85.178.16.223:666 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:25] *** Detected search spam from: 212.54.11.36:7650 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:25] *** Detected search spam from: 60.48.108.222:14375 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 67.70.91.186:18778 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 195.174.63.14:26656 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 83.250.89.185:7143 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 82.72.120.41:444 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 85.105.70.155:11700 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 218.174.159.93:4505 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:27] *** Detected search spam from: 203.217.36.227:22865 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:28] *** Detected search spam from: 85.101.198.162:8001 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:28] *** Detected search spam from: 87.17.125.42:9357 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:28] *** Detected search spam from: 24.155.98.160:4923 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:28] *** Detected search spam from: 85.226.42.166:6600 (Nick Unknown)
[10:00:28] *** Detected search spam from: 160.75.114.195:8303 (Nick Unknown)
[10:01:58] *** Detected search spam from: 85.108.194.17:13539 (Nick Unknown)
[10:02:20] *** Detected search spam from: 84.52.136.7:1411 (Nick Unknown)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 29 May, 2006, 08:35:22
It also happened to me one day with d1 : an hub restart solved the problem...

Take also note there was a bandwidth issue on my server that day.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 11:50:54
Yeah, hub restart resolves for a while, but users start bitching again.. We were being DDoS'ed since last 12 hrs; so I'll check if these happen while we're being attacked
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 12:00:50
What's interesting is, we ARE being DDoS'ed at the moment too but with 0.3.4.0i0, no one receives search spam..   :o
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 29 May, 2006, 14:35:06
I checked all changes from i to j and here is no change related to deflood  :(
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 14:45:54
I didnt blame deflood functionality for search spams; we were being flooded or DDoS'ed by spoofed, type 3 ICMP packets.

And what I was trying to say was 0.3.4.0i0 didn't lag searches where 0.3.4.0j0 did.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: blackwings on 29 May, 2006, 16:05:49
I checked all changes from i to j and here is no change related to deflood  :(
isn't it possible that you made something wrong when you did these changes? =

Fixed: Not working "no main chat deflood" and "no private message deflood" for multiline messages (thx ']['yphoon? for report).
Fixed: Crash on bad $SR returned to UDP.
Changed: Complete rewrite of data queues.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 29 May, 2006, 17:01:22
These changes are already included in i version  ::)

And what I was trying to say was 0.3.4.0i0 didn't lag searches where 0.3.4.0j0 did.
Both have same interval to send searches, and no changes from i to j  ::)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: blackwings on 29 May, 2006, 17:11:24
These changes are already included in i version  ::)
I know, what I meant was that maybe you made something wrong when you made those changes.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: bastya_elvtars on 29 May, 2006, 19:18:36
FYI, ICMP has nothing to do with active search results.
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 29 May, 2006, 21:36:25
I am check 3 times changes from i to j, and no change related to search requests found :(
I am check things related to search and everything looks ok.
GeceBekcisi from what client is this log, and running this client in passive or active mode  ??? (looks like passive because all search spams are active)  ::) Is here any log of data received by client from hub ??? It looks like in DC++ is spam more than 7 searches in 5 seconds :o
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: blackwings on 29 May, 2006, 21:42:20
I am check 3 times changes from i to j, and no change related to search requests found :(
I am check things related to search and everything looks ok.
GeceBekcisi said he also notice this in i,
so check for things changed between h - i ( or ad - i).
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: ConejoDelMal on 29 May, 2006, 21:54:09
i think the problem is not search related, but cpu and memory consumption, I also just got a lot of search spam warnings, as I checked the server, ptokax was using 98% of my cpu, and over 390.000K of memory.

*edited
running j1
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 22:03:31
FYI, ICMP has nothing to do with active search results.

Yeah that's true; unless they flow to my server like crazy and cause my server to lag..


GeceBekcisi from what client is this log, and running this client in passive or active mode? ??? (looks like passive because all search spams are active)? ::) Is here any log of data received by client from hub ??? It looks like in DC++ is spam more than 7 searches in 5 seconds :o

This log belongs to DC++ 0.674 as well as many other versions (my operators got reports from lots of people; those happened while I was away). This client is running in active mode. I don't have any log except the log above since I didn't experience that. Any more questions?


GeceBekcisi said he also notice this in i, so check for things changed between h - i ( or ad - i).

I think that's just a coincidence; I don't blame 0.3.4.0j0 at all...


i think the problem is not search related, but cpu and memory consumption, I also just got a lot of search spam warnings, as I checked the server, ptokax was using 98% of my cpu, and over 390.000K of memory.

*edited
running j1

Couldn't agree more; but as I said before it's interesting that 0.3.4.0i0 didn't cause that under the same conditions..
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 29 May, 2006, 23:54:43
GeceBekcisi said he also notice this in i,
Where ???
This client is running in active mode.
Then i don't understand why all spam is only from active users, active client get passive search request too :o I try to check, but everything looks ok on my hub  :'(
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 29 May, 2006, 23:58:34
As I said above

I think that's just a coincidence; I don't blame 0.3.4.0j0 at all...

I don't believe that's a PtokaX reated problem. My server was under heavy attack and it behaved weird, that's all... So don't mind it (as long as it doesn't get reported more than once) and save your energy for developing PtokaX further, PPK ;)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 30 May, 2006, 00:21:37
I will see tomorrow... i have now logged all search queues, and i will se if something get to queues twice (or more times) or it is really only lag problem  :P First 120 kB of log is ok  ::)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 30 May, 2006, 07:10:48
------------------------------------------------------------
CPU usage (60 sec avg): 2.70%
CPU time: 0:00:20
Mem usage (Peak): 25.59 MB (38.34 MB)
VM size (Peak): 26.57 MB (39.75 MB)
------------------------------------------------------------
SendRests (Peak): 16 (201)
RecvRests (Peak): 0 (3)
Compression saved: 6.78 MB
Data sent: 894.41 MB
Data received: 2.44 MB
Tx (60 sec avg): 3.63 MB/s (2.08 MB/s)
Rx (60 sec avg): 2.94 kB/s (3.54 kB/s)

What?? 2.08 MB/s for only 2000 users??? What have you added PPK?  :o
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: -SkA- on 30 May, 2006, 07:18:29
Ok j1 removed. It definitly has some problem... 16 Mbit for 2000 users is absurd and this search spam abuse in mainchat confirm my opinion:



[08:08:29] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 71.205.35.83:6613 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:08:38] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 81.224.36.54:4300 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:08:38] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 67.175.0.136:29401 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:09:29] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 207.195.65.179:3237 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:09:54] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 84.222.18.213:22783 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:16] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 82.51.125.151:14946 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:29] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 71.205.35.83:6613 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:31] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 172.216.221.191:1250 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:32] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 82.61.15.239:12738 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:40] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 81.224.36.54:4300 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:10:40] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 67.175.0.136:29401 (Nick sconosciuto)
[08:11:00] *** Ricerca spam rilevata da 193.77.158.217:8630 (Nick sconosciuto)

Code: [Select]
2000 users with ad1/i1:

------------------------------------------------------------
CPU usage (60 sec avg): 0.90%
CPU time: 0:00:08
Mem usage (Peak): 21.45 MB (39.06 MB)
VM size (Peak): 21.81 MB (39.64 MB)
------------------------------------------------------------
SendRests (Peak): 9 (199)
RecvRests (Peak): 0 (2)
Data sent: 270.35 MB
Data received: 1.34 MB
Tx (60 sec avg): 568.08 kB/s (399.14 kB/s)
Rx (60 sec avg): 3.02 kB/s (3.97 kB/s)
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: Thor on 30 May, 2006, 07:42:46
On our hub with 2 - 300 users PtokaX 0.3.4.0h0 use:
Code: [Select]
CPU usage (60 sec avg): 0.00%
CPU time: 1:12:06
Mem usage (Peak): 32.01 MB (65.14 MB)
VM size (Peak): 32.20 MB (65.46 MB)
------------------------------------------------------------
SendRests (Peak): 1 (125)
RecvRests (Peak): 1 (11)
Data sent: 2.95 GB
Data received: 106.49 MB
Tx (60 sec avg): 15.35 kB/s (5.25 kB/s)
Rx (60 sec avg): 211 B/s (171 B/s)
This is quite low...
And yesterday night i was very curious how many users-hub can i run with my shitty 24 Kb/s upload. I tried it with PtokaX 0.3.4.0j0 without any script, just the setted up hubsoftware, and 320 users was the peak, no more user can log in. And was 20 sec lag on it? ;D I think it is not the worst, because it contained many foreign users...
Code: [Select]
Users (Max/Actual Peak (Max Peak)/Logged): 500 / 326 (326) / 317
Users shared size: 12549751107194 Bytes / 11.41 TB
CPU usage (60 sec avg): 0.45%
CPU time: 0:00:07
Mem usage (Peak): 13.36 MB (13.48 MB)
VM size (Peak): 7.76 MB (8.07 MB)
------------------------------------------------------------
SendRests (Peak): 79 (81)
RecvRests (Peak): 0 (1)
Compression saved: 483.80 kB
Data sent: 21.82 MB
Data received: 399.43 kB
Tx (60 sec avg): 47.07 kB/s (29.61 kB/s)
Rx (60 sec avg): 3.29 kB/s (376 B/s)
I was very thunderstrucked, i thought about 200 users will be the max. So the Mb/s is very strange...
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: PPK on 30 May, 2006, 13:12:03
Is here any log of data received by client, because -SkA- spam iis bug of client or nick sconosciuto flooding hub  :o

//EDIT
After another source check maybe i found where is bug... if user support ZPipe (one of changes to j is enabling ZPipe0 for DC++) then is not deleted active search request (is send more times -> search spam) :o
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: Thor on 30 May, 2006, 13:41:38
I think this ***Search spam detected messages are because the very high bandwith usage... The search request are collecting, then when a little bandwith is free, it will be sended to all users. I am on a 30 users hub (PtokaX 0.3.4.0) and sometimes after in the mainchat is a little lag, i used to see ***MyINFO spam detected from X.y. So if you can solve the bandwith problem, it will solve the search spam messages also
Title: Re: 0.3.4.0j
Post by: GeceBekcisi on 30 May, 2006, 15:09:46
After another source check maybe i found where is bug... if user support ZPipe (one of changes to j is enabling ZPipe0 for DC++) then is not deleted active search request (is send more times -> search spam)

Good observation PPK.. Check below please:

Code: [Select]
85.101.198.162 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:27/2/0,S:2>
160.75.114.195 <++ V:0.687,M:A,H:2/0/0,S:4>
195.174.63.14 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:9/1/0,S:3>
203.217.36.227 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:7/1/0,S:2,O:5>
212.54.11.36 <++ V:0.687,M:A,H:75/0/1,S:2>
213.250.11.130 <++ V:0.687,M:A,H:75/0/1,S:2>
218.174.159.93 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:1/0/0,S:2>
24.155.98.160 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:117/0/0,S:2>
60.48.108.222 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:2/3/0,S:2>
67.70.91.186 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:34/0/0,S:3>
82.72.120.41 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:13/0/0,S:11,O:10>
83.250.89.185 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:13/0/0,S:3>
84.52.136.7 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:34/0/0,S:5>
85.105.70.155 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:4/3/0,S:7,O:380>
85.108.194.17 <++ V:0.688,M:A,H:8/1/0,S:5>
85.178.16.223 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:42/4/0,S:5>
85.226.42.166 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:11/0/0,S:10>
87.17.125.42 <++ V:0.689,M:A,H:3/0/0,S:4>

I checked all the IPs in my log and got their last used tags.. Wow! All the clients above support ZPipe!


Dear, search spam bug.. You're busted now!