|
Blocking other clients Oh, Vinnie (alias Freepeers, developer of Bearshare) thinks about blocking Xolox again: http://www.bearshare.net/forum/showt...&threadid=8616. He blames Xolox to be responsible alone for high Query/Queryhit traffic caused from automatc requeries without a proof/analysis Xolox is unhealthy... or more unhealthy compared to other clients (Phex, Gnucleus)... or how healthy Bearshare will be when running automatic requeries for resuming in future. In fact requeries are a must-have for automatic resuming and fast multisegmented downloading (e.g. when a host drops). No fact is which client has a unhealthy behaviour (e.g. Xolox has a seldom requery, not requerying each filename). This story remembers me somhow to Vinnies old statements that Xolox is allegedly bad (link 1 2), marketing? This story raises also some interesting questions: Should we really block unhealthy clients and what are the criterias for a "healthy" client? When are we allowed to block clients? Criterias for a good client might be.... good allround behaviour, forbidding freeloading, not creating wrong files, not misuse the network by broadcasting proprietary data, still in active development, not spreading blatant spyware, cooperative behaviour with other clients and vendors? Some thoughts, Moak PS: When Vinnie really blocks one client, without pubic discussion + no proof of bad behaviour... someone just has to patch Xolox.exe again and alter Xolox's vendor ID (more Klingon behaviour is optional). Since Xolox is still one of the most favourite client (users choice), Vinnie's idea to block them could put Bearshare into a better marketing position... pehaps it makes Bearshare a parasite (allow downloading from Xolox, not allowing downloads with Xolox). |
Are there really so many people still using XoloX? |
Does it even care? |
actually I think about 30% of the clients I see in the network are XoloX.. I need to get my analysis on the network traffic to be able to get a standpoint on this matter.. At a fast overview i think xolox and limewire (all their versions) generate just as much query-hits and download requests. In general, I think blocking clients is a bad thing. If he is so afraid of XoloX, he should get his own program better instead of killing the competition.. sheesh sounds like Microsoft :D Hmm.. maybe my client will have to block BearShare, reason? Well I noticed it increased my bandwidth by 10% when i connect to one.. DUH! i have 10 hosts! Tam |
I completly agree, blocking client downloads is a bad idea. As I told on Bearshare.net this download blocking idea isn't good at all. Stoping a bad client (with wild broadcasts) from connecting to the Gnutella network would make more sense and should be discussed together with all other developers (e.g GDF) first. Bearshare is not the only client. But I doubt Xolox is bad (hope we can discuss this tonight on IRC), Vinnie didn't give any facts or statistics, I doubt he has a brief understanding or analysis of what Xolox does. So I personally think Vinnie's new idea is just about marketing. Vinnie was not able to implement a fast multisegmented download or partial upload the last 4 months (some of Xolox new features and benefits), also no superpeer concept in Bearshare, Vinnie's "Defender" is dead. Xolox is still one of the best clients, more clients come with fast downloads & a good resume, Limwire will come with a FastTrack-like superpeer concept.... and Vinnie only badmouth some competitors to make Bearshare look better. Poor marketing. The old story again, this is anoying. *sigh* |
bad clients? I dont know about xolox behavior but the client is dead for all intesive purposes. If the coders would release the source code it would be different but I think all clients that are not in active development should be blocked. Too much consideration is given to breaking compatability when implementing new featurs and the network should not be dragged down by the lowest common denominator. |
Are you kidding? Why blocking an old client, when it works well? Noone was ever thinking about blocking old clients, until Vinnie came with his false rumours again, he constantly did badmouth Xolox instead of learning from it. Why would somone likes to block Xolox? Xolox works well and is one of the best clients still. Perhaps you want to give us some facts. PS: Zeropaid article "Bearshare to Block Xolox? NOT!" http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../01092001b.php |
" think about 30% of the clients I see in the network are XoloX.. " This is definetly not true. In terms of uploads from my servent they acount for less than one percent. The majority of uploads is to Limewire and then Bearshare. Xolox is not a common client. |
Quote:
No, all polls here on Gnutellaforums or on Zeropaid (within the last 4-8 weeks) tells that Xolox is one of the top favourite clients, users choice. Funny for a discontinued client. It shows that other vendors still needs improvements (yeah would be great). How did you collect your upload/download statistics, which tools, Unregistered? |
Everybody is in different networks. Nobody is connected to everybody.. its most likely you're in an island, and btw, bearshare and limewire prefer connecting to themselves, further promoting that you will only see a few other clients. Maybe YOU see only 1% XoloX users, I do NOT. If you can not even log in to give a nick to your flappant statement, and give no statistics other than what you see on your (probably bearshare/limewire) client, you can not say that it's the same everywhere on the network. Try a 0.4 client some day and you'll be amazed! |
@ Moak OK, you read sites like zeropaid and the gnutellaforums. Then you use XoloX. But how many people know those sites? I mean those polls are not significant! Most people voting in those polls are "experts", and they know all programms. And I am sure: With the end of XoloX in December at least 50% of its user stoped using it! (50% is even too low, my sight) @ Tamama ----------- Everybody is in different networks ----------- Thats right, but I NEVER was in a net in which the number of files coming on my search from XoloX was even over 10% I give you an example: (every search after a connection reset, and with different searchwords) 1194 Hits, 1 from XoloX (sex) 1289 Hits, 10 from Xolox (Britney) 983 Hits, 20 from Xolox (Madonna) 361 Hits, 39 from XoloX (DivX) OK, this is not significant too, but I really never had much traffic with XoloX! There are never 30% XoloX clients! |
Personally i dont care about XoloX. query-hits and clients are 2 different things. Although indeed with things like 1 hit you can' think that a lot of clients are on your horizon.. oh well. Your post just confirms that xolox does NOT generate a lot of network traffic... which was why vinnie intend to block it. Just to get back to the original topic: Should we block certain clients? I still think it's a stupid thing to do. You start with 1 client, then another one.. then in the end a client can only connect to itself or it's buddies client. I think this is not good for the network at all. |
Different statistics Good, let's assume a few people use Xolox now, then Vinnie's idea makes even less sense. Let's assume many people use Xolox still, then we still have only Vinnies unproofen word that Xolox is bad, no side did ever agree or underlined this. If most ppl voting are "experts", then making Xolox constantly #1 is also a sign that Xolox isn't bad. I think Vinnie just wasted our time with his accusations/jealousness against Xolox again. Blocking Gnutella clients was never a topic, in my eyes it still isn't. The best argument is that new clients are better and provide more features, so users will use them. Xolox is discontinued, the hacked version is only attractive as long as other clients are not providing the same features. As soon as more modern clients will come, Xolox is history. |
block dead clients I have been an advocate for some time of the idea of blocking clients that are no longer in development. Xolox falls into this catagory and should be blocked. Some users will not take the time to look around for other better clients and Im sure this dead client will be around to haunt the network for some time. Irregarless of its behaviour now, the client cannot grow and change with the network and is therefor a dead weight dragging it down. I wish the programmers would release the source code so that the program could continue to live but.... Ohh, well. KILL IT! |
Is that logical? Gnutellafan, logik says: if Xolox is bad block it, if Xolox is not bad don't block it. Question is how bad is Xolox, please give technical reasons no emotional. Blocking without reason makes no sense, that's censorship. "Old" doesn't mean bad automatically, perhaps it just means nice with less features, perhaps. Speaking about Xolox it was one of the best client of it's time, pushing Gnutella and development forward! Some client, e.g. Bearshare still haven't gained the same functionality (in this context Bearshare looks still old, should we block Bearshare now?). When you doubt, let's list technical advantages and disadvantages. I have analysed Bearshare and Xolox a while. Comparing some of the most favourite clients, Limewire, Xolox, Limewire, Phex, Bearshare.... Bearshare is those with less functionality, less technology, the oldest in this context! In your words: Oh well, KILL IT!? :-) |
Re: block dead clients Quote:
The morale: If a product isn't in production, it doesn't mean people won't use it anymore. -- Mike |
IMO if there is proof that a dead client is damaging the network and most (75%) of the other clients agree it should be blocked.. |
gnucleus and variants do more damage to the network than XoloX. Even recent versions sent out about 25-50% of their data in pings. This is intollerable. kill it? |
Evolution Why should anyone block clients? I think the developers just need to create good SW, and then, all the old clients will be changed for new ones. So there will be no need to block them. |
yes, good point. Blocking is a non issue, only Vinnie came up with it... |
Ok here are some numbers. I think pretty representative. I logged the network for 3 days 15h. every 2 1/2 minutes I generated searches for: windows exe jpg mp3 gif madonna american avi Alltogether 67 623 252 Hits. I had about 40 connections open in average (1GB LAN ;) ) Here is the distributian and the percentages: Fri Jan 11 19:54:21 2002 Tue Jan 15 11:17:38 2002 UPTIME: 3d 15h 23m LIME:28246946 = 41.77% BEAR:2718954 = 4.02% (strange???) QTEL:20652 = 0.03% CULT:0 GNOT:70665 = 0.10% GNUC:1731415 = 2.56% GNUT:45262 = 0.07% GTKG:2860 = 0.00% HSLG:0 MACT:671 = 0.00% MNAP:576296 = 0.85% NAPS:0 OCFG:0 OPRA:0 PHEX:136824 = 0.20 % SNUT:29564887 = 43.72% SWAP:0 TOAD:0 XOLO:216465 = 0.32% ZIGA:105 = 0.00% OTHE:4291560 = 6,35% |
very interesting! I wonder why bearshare is so low? Maybe vinnie's new version already bans other clients. What a dork. I'm a little surprised to see swapnut with so many. What client did you use for this little experiment?:cool: |
My hacked Qtella client ;) |
Quote:
Other than that, you're searching for rather specific things ("windows", "madonna"). How about using more broad keywords like "live", "metal", "sex", etc. Another thing: You're purposedly are spamming the network every 2-1/2 minutes. In my opinion, I cannot call it reasearch if you disturb the network. -- Mike |
Calm down a little bit ... I mean I do that for 3 days that's it. By the way you know how many clients of the network you reach with the searches? Not as many as yo expect ;) Do you have a better idea how to check out the client information? At last I have some very interesting results about network size and structure from it and as it looks like Qtella would also scale if no TTL limit would be used. Is that research enough? Shure I do generate load on the network you are right but how would you like to improve the network concept without any fundamental research and theory on the network itsself? Just to make it clear, I do not do that for fun and for months. I started it last week and next week the messurements are done. AND the client isn't always running as well ... Quote:
Interestingly they should block a three letter search for "exe" but they find "sex" ;) |
Re: block dead clients Quote:
If you are going to block Xolox then perhaps you should also block all of the people using older versions of Limewire and Bearshare (since everybody knows the new versions are complete sh!te). Hell, lets go one step further and completely kill the network by blocking anyone that isn't using THEE latest client implementing THEE latest non-working features! Whatever... Anyone who implements blocking of specific clients should perhaps think about starting their own bloody network. |
statistics Hi hermaf, cultiv8r! Hmm about client statistics, we have three posibilities: - high TTL search Queries and evaluate vendor codes from the 'Extended Queryhit Descriptor'. - share common request files and evaluate HTTP log files. - a low TTL crawler (TTL=2 or 3) and evaluate handshake... ONLY with v0.6 servents. Unfourtunately the last possibility does not work with older clients (e.g Xolox). But I guess it will give us a much better client statistics in future! Such a crawler is not unhealthy (no excessive broadcast traffic), results do not rely on shared files and routed messages, are not faisified by pong caches, throtelling or file caches in superpeers. We could combine all three methods, compare the results. /Moak |
Re: Is that logical? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Moak I have analysed Bearshare and Xolox a while. Comparing some of the most favourite clients, Limewire, Xolox, Limewire, Phex, Bearshare.... Bearshare is those with less functionality, less technology, the oldest in this context! Could u plz. supply me with this analysis?? It will help me so so so much in the process of deciding how to make my client a healthy, good behaving client:D :D :D |
I'm too lazy, just list all the features a client has and compare. :) |
Why blocking clients that are no longer being developed??? Would you take all old Beetles from the streets just because they are not being produced any more? What about the people that still want to drive them? I'm currently using Gnotella with no problems which development is (momentanously???) stopped. I am not comparing Gnotella with the Beetle, but I know there's still a lot of people using it, and I know it's more than the 0.10% mentioned above. Besides, those satistics are relative. Some clients are used by some specifically for some types of files, and therefore the words you use to compare may not be the most adequate to do an objective analysis of the network. Ivan "In the dark we make a brighter light" |
Quote:
|
Oh sorry, didn't want to be unfriendly. Hey, just post your results here or as a PM and I will take some time and try to fill it with my client experience. I think a compariosn between favourite Gnutella clients, Fasttrack clients and eDonkey could be cool... perhaps wake up some developers. *g* Greets, Moak |
Gnutella will probably never be like Fasttrack or eDonkey. And then again why should it? It's already much better for the one or another task (e.g. for downloading mp3s) |
what I cant believe that you people are comparing out of date clients with old cars. Clients that are not being developed are draging the network down. Everytime programers want to add a new feature they have to worry about backward compatability. The network will always be dragged down by these dead clients until we get rid of them. Then the network can grow. For example, all of the modern clients will soon be CORRECTLY implementing swarmed downloads with fule file hashes. The old clients wont have this. Should developers wish to add encryption they cant because these old clients are dead in the water. |
Define 'soon'! You mean 'soon' like the GDF stopped arguing whether to use HUGE or GGEP? But anyways, most of the clients are up-to-date enough, not to cause any serious network troubles. There are some newer clients e.g. Xolox which are not helping the network by sending a lot of queries. |
Unregistered: We have standarts, here it's Gnutella protocol v0.4 (+ v0.6 which is just a new handshaking)... also old clients do still following this protocol, great for everyone. If we need a new protocoll, we could introduce it! If you think we need a new protocol which is not backwards compatible, just do it and post detailed suggestions for discussion. While Gnutella clients are in steady improvement, switching over to a new protocoll would be possible.... until now I haven't heard any voice we should leave backwards compatibility. Most ideas like superpeers, hashs, metadata, specialized horizons, swarming and freeloader reducing could be perfecty integrated into Gnutella, it was wisely designed flexible enough. With the new v0.6 handshaking we could do even more crazy things. Personally I play with the idea of introducing some new descriptors (see older postings about XPING/XPONG etc or packing Query/Queryhits together), not backwards compatible... but it's just design theory yet and far far future. John: We can compare features anyway. Gnutella allready learned from Fasttrack, superpeer ability will come soon, hashs and metadata will follow. A overview on features, advantages and disadvantages will help coders in design and implementation. |
PS: John, define 'a lot of queries', then compare with result from other servents. Plz don't spread false rumours. |
Nope, it ain't rumours. Xolox implemented automated requerying. Which is ok, when you do it for a few files, but some users obviously did that for a couple of dozens of files or so. At least I remember that regularly Xolox clients generated the most traffic in my connections tab. It was also Xolox which used to send you lot's of download requests, once it occupied one upload-slot downloading some divx-movie or so. I didn't like that... |
Quote:
Btw. it's been nearly a year since I read the first articles about Gnutella-Supernodes and whether or not to implement them. Some articles were argueing Gnutella would not remain pure if they implemented any kind of hierarchical structure. That was a couple of months time before I ever heard of fasttrack - I was still using Napster, then. - This is just to illustrate what 'soon' can mean, if you're talking gnutella. And I don't see the GDF trying to speed things up. - But that's just my impression. |
oops, that should be 'cache file names' up there... |
apple, eggs, bananas John: Comon, exact numbers & statistics plz! How many Query messages, how many requeries, etc. About "Xolox clients generated the most traffic ffic in my connections tab", did you setup an test environment between two isolated servents? Otherwise you see routed traffic from the servents behind = false rumours. Read the_Seekers posting on bearshare.net about how to do such things properly. |
Moak, I won't do that, because all I said was, that I didn't like, what I saw of Xolox behaviour. It is my impression, I don't have to prove it, because I don't claim, that it was gained in a scientifical way. That Xolox implemented automated requerying (I think there are only two or three other clients which do the same) is no secret. And the Bearshare-developers won't consider blocking it for nothing. I don't consider Xolox a good gnutella client, - hell, it was more of a trojan than anything LimeWire could bundle with it's software. |
apple, eggs, bananas, John, miao I think your post speaks for itself, there is nothing needed to add. |
Re: apple, eggs, bananas, John, miao Quote:
Remember what you have told me! Sometimes its better to ignore the trolls... Morgwen |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.