Quote:
Originally posted by rubaiyat
Thanks for all the details s:-) ... And for finally mentioning your clients!!!! Now that didn't hurt, did it! |
Not even a wee bit !
Because I did NOT mention what client I am using.
I only mentioned some of the clients being used by people who are Downloading files from me !
(Anyway, you KNOW which client I am using !)
Quote:
I take it you are using a far greater bandwidth than I have. That in itself has a substantial effect. As you say fast in, fast out is always best. That is self evident!
It makes it even more pertinent that I can do as well as I do with my narrow bandwidth. |
Taken incorrectly...
Me is humpin' along here on ADSL 256/128 which, in the real world, works out at an average max of 27.3kBs Down and 13.8kBs UP for my rather common set-up.
Quote:
| I beg to differ on your above comment. ... took no setting up and just ran as expected. |
With the client I am using I am running with ALL Default Settings... Wisely, there has been much progress with this client and the user is allowed to alter very few of the important settings. I only bitch about 2 of the 'user determined' settings because there are limits imposed which relate more to those who are sharing large files at the 'expense' of those who are sharing mainly small files... It's not really that big of a deal though... I mean, what can you do with 'statistics freaks' ?
Besides, they are doing what they do for the overall general well-being of the network. Sure beats fools with 2,000 Upload Queue slots as default or even allowable !
Quote:
| stief thinks Poisoned may use port hopping to get its better results. I don't care how it does it, just that it does. |
"I don't care how the oranges apple, just that they do."
Still need to compare like with like.
February 25th, 2004
Re: Re: 'Speed' Comparisons 
Similar Threads 
Threaded Mode
