ultrapeer problem.

#1 (**permalink**) December 9th, 2001

i configured limewire to have 10 connections up, everything is fine until it find another ultranode. as soon as it connects to that ultranode it disconnect from all other hosts. and that those ultranodes usaly have only 1-3 other hosts connected...
i'm running WinXP..

John Blackbelt Jones · #2 (**permalink**) December 9th, 2001

I experienced the same. - I guess the reason is, that there aren't enough ultra-peers yet, so the connection betwixt the different ultra-peers is almost none existent yet.

#3 (**permalink**) December 9th, 2001

yep, same here too.

#4 (**permalink**) December 9th, 2001

I think it is designed to be this way.

When you connect to an Ultranode, you automaticly drop all other connections, since they are not needed.

Now, the ultranode you connected to, was probably confgiured to connect to only 3 other hosts.

I do not think this has anything to do with how many Ultranodes are out there.

#5 (**permalink**) December 9th, 2001

hmm..could be...
ok, but i'm acting as ultranode too and i should see others connect to me..
and shouldn't limewire how many clients can that ultranode see?

DubStar · #6 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

Slight problem with the ultrapeer functionality.. When connecting normally it drops the other peer connections when it finds an ultrapeer.. But, if that ultrapeer should go down and it tries to connect to normal peers again, it only seems to try to connect to 1 at a time instead of however many are specified. The only way I could get around it was to disconnect and reconnect.

#7 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

DubStar: havnt had that problem yet so I dont know what could be causing that...

But the Ultrapeer functionality is acting a little weird. I'll connect and maybe at first it'll connect to the max num of regular peers, ok fine. Then after a few mins, it drops and etc it'll find an Ultrapeer to connect to. So it drops all other connections and stays connected to the Ultrapeer. Then everything is cool and it'll drop the Ultrapeer connection and repeat the process I just described (I can actually sit and watch it do this in 2 minutes time atleast 2 times). Not really sure what is going on. Another thing is when I am connected to a Ultrapeer and execute a search the Input on the connection is like ~5-9 KB/s until I pretty much get all of the results back. Is the throughput suppose to be that high? I mean thats even when it indicates it has 1 hosts (assuming 1 other Ultrapeer connected to it?). I was thinking maybe it dropped the connection b/c of bandwidth usage b/c you guys implemented the new upload options and they were not optimize correctly. I have cable access and 6 sim. uploads going @ >4KB/s lags my ***. So it drops connections and gets everything in a mess. But anyways after that first search it drops the connection and repeats with the connection situation I was talking about in the above. But as far as not searching for anything the I/O is very low ~0.05 KB/s at max. So what are your ideas Adam?

#8 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

I should point out it doesnt drop connections continuously, just more than it should.

#9 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

What is the significance of the "Hosts" count when you're connected to an Ultrapeer? Does that mean how many Ultrapeers you're connected to?

#10 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

I'm going to break down what Adam is saying for the people who really dont know what he is talking about. (I'm trying to be helpful not sarcastic.)

Quote:

Originally posted by afisk
When you connect to an UltraPeer, you do automatically drop the rest of your connections. This is the desired behavior, as the peer is acting as your proxy and is shielding you from all of the traffic on the network, except for queries for files that you have, which are forwarded to you.

This means you are connected to ONE peer that handles queries that would overwise pass through and consume network bandwidth. That peer caches what you are sharing so when someone searches for something (sends a query our on the network) that would go to that ONE peer and stop and if there is a match of something you are sharing it sends the information back so that host can see that you're sharing that file. Then of course after that he can connect to you and download the file.

Quote:

Also, I should mention that being a client peer or an UltraPeer does not necessarily reflect the power of your machine or your bandwidth -- most users who have plenty powerul enough machines and plenty of bandwidth will remain client peers most of the time.

self-explanatory.

Quote:

I admit that the switch to becoming a client peer seems a little bit wierd at first, as your connectivity (and hence network reach) appears to have dropped. Once there are more UltraPeers on the network, however, it should not matter at all. This is because each forwarding of a query to another layer out on the network will become much more significant, as each "hop" will effectively query a larger number of hosts/files than before. This is because a hop to an UltraPeer could mean searching through 50 hosts connected directly to that UltraPeer, which means your searching far more files that a hop to an old peer who might only have 4 hosts connected to it, and therefore far less files.

This means now with Ultrapeers the network will look like this.

XXXX
XXXX (Host X = Ultrapeer)
XXXX
/ | \
A B C (Hosts A, B, and C = Clientpeers)

meaning one Ultrapeer could have 50 hosts connected to it instead of the old design

A B
\ /
/ \
C D

where the max number of hosts connected are 4 and they produce X amount of traffic for a specifc query. As where when connected to an Ultrapeer it produces the same X amount of traffic with 100 times more clients connected to it for a specific query.

So in other simplier terms when connecting to an Ultrapeer its like that ONE peer is sharing all files of those 50 hosts instead of 50 individual hosts sharing their own files. Because you query Host Z for X and Host Z replies telling you he has X available for download. So you query Ultrapeer and it replies telling you Host Z has X available for download. Essentially cutting down extremely on Gnutella network traffic. Hope that paints a picture.

Quote:

I hope that makes some sense. So, there is a timing issue here. As more LimeWire 1.9 and aboves get out there, you should see better search results even as the total messages past are far fewer than before.

Gnutella is really going to kick *** when LimeWire 1.9 is released full stream and Bearshare does the same (I think Vinnie was or is going to implement Supernodes or at least the new "Query Routing Protocol")

One last question....Adam what is the LimeWire's comments on the Network History Size graph on LimeWire.com? About its up and downs?

oh yeah and I love networking (just felt like saying that :P).

#11 (**permalink**) December 10th, 2001

Here I'll say you want I'm talking about about searching when I'm connected to an Ultrapeer. It says a Host count of 5, ok. I searched for 'christmas' in the 'audio' category and looked at the Input of my connection and it maxed out at 37KB/s. I received 1350 unique results and I have a screenshot here.

http://24.37.161.8/12-10-01-10.23pm.jpg

Wheres its today's date at 10:23 PM my time.

I have another one where I was connected to ~27 trillion files, 6222 hosts, and ~64TB of data.

http://24.37.161.8/11-13-01-1.43am.jpg

Nov 13, 2001 at 1:43 AM.

#12 (**permalink**) December 11th, 2001

I think there are several things being missed here:

1. You want to drop all other connections when you find an UltraPeer ... if you're not *also* an UltraPeer. Meaning, if I'm a modem user, I only want to find my one sugar-daddy UltraPeer. But, if I'm a symmetric DSL (or T1!) user, I should probably become an UltraPeer to the modem users ... and I shouldn't drop them all if I find another UltraPeer, should I?

2. Servents should qualify for UltraPeer-ness until they've been on-line for some preset time, e.g. at least 2 hours. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of ****ed-off modem users searching for a new UltraPeer.

3. I would like to see an additional feature where each UltraPeer informs it's "clients" of every other UltraPeer it has found. The clients (eg. modem users) would only use this info if they lost the connection to the original UltraPeer. If they have been informed of more than one UltraPeer, they would randomly pick one to reconnect to -- thus spreading the client load across the remaining UltraPeers.

- Tony in San Diego

#13 (**permalink**) December 11th, 2001

oops! I left out a couple things on Point no. 2 above:
- I meant to say "shouldn't qualify until"
- I also wanted to point out that only stable long-term connections should become UltraPeers.

afisk · #14 (**permalink**) December 11th, 2001

Anti-Bearshare-

I managed to replicate the problem you were having with getting disconnected from the UltraPeer after searching for something really popular. I'm about to add it to our bugs database, and we're going to work on it.

We think it's not actually directly related to supernodes -- there has always been logic in there to disconnect from a node that one node is sending a lot of messages to when that node is not sending any messages back the other way. This logic just doesn't make as much sense with UltraPeers around.

Thanks very much for your careful observations in noticing this problem.

#15 (**permalink**) December 11th, 2001

how does a leaf behaves when connecting to an ultrapeer ? does it just send its file list over so the ultrapeer can 'pretend" to own all those files ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UltraPeer dropout problem	GooRoo	Open Discussion topics	1	May 21st, 2005 03:59 PM
Ultrapeer to Ultrapeer Problem?	DrDeke	Connection Problems	3	October 29th, 2004 01:22 PM
ultrapeer	vintagedork	LimeWire Beta Archives	1	March 10th, 2004 04:41 PM
Ultrapeer	BaDbOy3998	Connection Problems	2	May 13th, 2003 06:55 PM
what is ultrapeer?	cyberrat67	General Windows Support	0	March 4th, 2002 01:02 PM