ultrapeer connects to too many ultrapeers on 2.9.10
 

I know that more recent versions of limewire accept more ultrapeer connections when running as an ultrapeer.

however, 2.9.10 gives me almost three (3) times as many ultrapeer connections. there seem to be a lot of ultrapeers. considering, how badly ultrapeers do in terms of upload performance, i wonder whether this is a good thing.

also: doesn't such a high ultrapeer density lead to an overly connected network with lots of redundant connections?

lastly: I don't have a single non limewire host. how are we keeping the connection to other vendors?

LimeWire reduced the outgoing bandwidth limit for ultrapeers in a first step to 8kb/s, so upload performance should not be a major issue. - I think LimeWire could go as low as 5kb/s once traffic compression is activated by default.

As a general rule, the more ultrapeers there are, the lower the bandwidth requirement per ultrapeer.

More ultrapeer connections do not increase the number of redundant connections if you reduce the TTL at the same time. The number of redundant connection is a function of your theoretical network horizon, not of the number of ultrapeer connections.

LimeWire is not very good at keeping connections to other vendors because other vendors do not support this so-called 'high-outdegree network' yet. You can expect that to change with the next BearShare release. The new BearShare betas already connect to LimeWire very well.

And you don't really want good connections to lame GnucDNA client, - because they can mess up your searches. If you search for "the song xy" GnucDNA based clients (Morpheus, Gnucleus, Mynapster) seem return all results containing "the", "song" or "xy" - and that can really hurt you when your ultrapeers will return only so many results and all of them are completely unrelated to what you were searching for because you have a couple of GnucDNA clients in your neighbourhood.

Thanks for the info.

Ultrapeer bandwidth: I was referring to upload of shared files, not messages. Sorry for the confusion. I have about 1/5 of the uploads of what I get when I run as a leaf. My thinking is a high percentage of ultrapeers (read: hosts with reduced file upload capacity) is bad for the network.

Redundant connections: TTL solution makes sense, although it still seems that the higher the number of Ultrapeers, the higher the chance of circles, but I guess there are reasons for more ultrapeers.

GnucDNA: This sucks, there seem to be many, esp. when counting Morpheus. :-(

I was talking about the same thing. The number of upload requests should be the same when running as an ultrapeer as when running as a leaf. The only thing that could keep you from uploading is that you have to devote bandwidth to relaying messages. - If you have more ultrapeers the number of relayed messages should remain more or less the same so each ultrapeer would have to relay fewer messages. If there are more ultrapeers but the the upload capacity per ultrapeer is increased, you should not loose anything.

Morpheus doesn't have that many users anymore. Both BearShare and LimeWire have a lot more users.

Exactly. That's what it seems to be. Again, this is actual experience, not just me theorizing. And if that's the case, more ultrapeers means less upload bandwidth available in the network.

This could be an isolated exceptional case, but it seems unlikely. I'm on a completely average, normal cable connection.

Normally a good process for ultrapeer selection includes as a paramater the number of files a user is sharing or the average number of uploads. I know Bearshare is doing that, but I nerver heard about it for Limewire (Trap_jaw???). If you are a big sharer, disable the ultrapeer option in preferences.

Oh and an 2.9.x ultrapeer has a hard limit of 8Kb/s of message routing, so even 2.9.10 with 32 connections should route the same amount of message as 16 connections for 2.9.8.

Unfortunately LimeWire does not consider the number of shared files when electing ultrapeers. Even worse, a client that never shared a single file can never become an ultrapeer because LimeWire could not confirm that the outgoing bandwidth is sufficient to serve as an ultrapeer.

that makes it even worse. does the limewire crew know about this issue?

I guess so.

Forced partial file sharing is then the way to go! Leechers will be forced to share at least when downloading videos.... Promoting them to ultrapeer on next startup...

I have been working on a partial filesharing patch for a couple of weeks. It's basically ready to be implemented any time, but I still have to write unit tests (which is very tedious, so I'm not very motivated) and move some code because the LimeWire developers chose to remove some classes I was depending on last week.

congrats trap_jaw--hope all your work to help the efficiency of gnutella is appreciated.

Re too many ultrapeers, a few quick checks yesterday showed better results connected to 3 hosts as a legitimate leaf than when connected to 32 hosts as a "false leaf." (by disabling Ultrapeer when connected initially as ultrapeer).

et voilà--how are you able to maintain a connection as an Ultrapeer? You're on OSX and a router, right? Every time I try to connect as an Ultrapeer, the hosts build up to ~40-50, and when 10 or more can't resolve the IP within 30 seconds, I lose all connections and internet access. I'd hoped this was a java problem, but looks like Acq users still have "router saturation"

Maybe if LW would add Ultrapeers slowly enough for the DNS lookups?

re: Stief
You're correct I'm behind a router and most of the time I use os X. However I've fowarded the gnutella port + I have forced IP. Also, note that my router is a Linksys with the latest firmware, which is a big factor IMO. It is true that a router can be easily satured by lots of incoming connections, I think that cheap routers don't have enough memory to keep the pace of connections.
It does a long time since I haven't been an UP because I prefer share my rare stuff on the 160kb/s sympatico upload speed...
I'll do more tests and be right back.

I've been UP for over 15 minutes now and no problems: I have 62-64 current hosts like it should be, I have over 4000 total hosts, and no problems. In fact it is much better with 2.9.10 then in the 2.1-2.8 series. I'm not dropping hosts like I used to and the bandwidth usage is low both up and down (+/- 9Kb/s up and down). It may be that low because I've enabled traffic compression up and down. I wonder when Limewire will be compression by default, because it saves approximatly 50% of bandwith. Now for the record my processor usage is around 40% for an iMac DV 400 overclocked to 450, so it is low. So far no problems or downsides....

just curious: how much do you upload compared to when you run as a leaf?

you run OSX on a G3 450 as an ultrapeer? I didn't know they were fast enough forr that.

> I wonder when Limewire will be compression by default, because it saves approximatly 50% of bandwith

we're waiting till a large portion of clients support it, so we can better test the CPU impact and determine if there needs to be limits on the amount of concurrently compressed connections. if we see it's not a problem, then it's just a matter of changing one word in one file from 'false' to 'true'. if it is, we'll put some sort of limit on the number of compressed connections a client will try to maintain at one time.

on my measly 500mhz p3, the 'row striping' is more of a CPU hog than compression is, so i doubt it'll be too much of a problem.

à Osu_uma:
I wasn't sharing files when I was UP, but if I had uploads, they would have gone at 7Kb/s instead of 17Kb/s, and they would have interfered with the ultrapeer traffic (packets filtered.. etc..) which is not good for Gnet. My lowly 450 is powerful enough, it runs 5 web sites on the dsl connection, plus it does run many things at once, I can't complain :) (no UT2003 damnit!).

Merci et voilà --tried posting within a few minutes of your results, but the site was down. 64 hosts, eh! I wrongly thought 32 was the norm. So no problem resolving the IP's. Hmmm. 10BaseT Ethernet, or did you set up for the 100?

it's my NAT software, then (an old Mac IIci running IPNetRouter68K software), which has worked well for four years, but not good enough for gnutella I guess. The family has been bugging me for AirPort, but casual research tells me it's just as bad. More reading needed. And yeah, 6346 mapped, IP forced (if only 1 client active), quick check of upload bandwidth : 592709 bps, or 592 kbps. Haven't seen any problems with CPU and memory % on my 700 G3 (10.2.6) with the recent 2.9's.

Neat about the compression. With both up and down allowed, 50% savings here too for messages. Kept watching for 2.9.10 up or downloads just in case someone had the HTTP compression enabled. Does seem very promising (and maybe the first step to encrypted packet-shaping?).

Still, if 50% of gnutella users are behind all sorts of routers, maybe LW could filter/throttle incoming connections to get around saturating older and less efficient routers. As a leaf, LW seems to try three at a time, but as an UP, connections seem to try in blocks of 10. My router can add blocks of 3 fairly smoothly, but not 10.

osu_uma-- and others-- any suggestions about becoming Ultrapeers with routers?

steif: would be interesting to know what the process is that makes a host into an ultrapeer.

my completely unrepresentative observation is: normally, limewire starts as a leaf. if I have it running for quite some time (like, a day or so), and quit, and restart it, it starts as an ultrapeer and usually remains an ultrapeer. it seems like the longer the downtime in between, the less likely it will start as ultrapeer again or it will drop back to leaf.

it tends to drop back to leaf if there are not enough connections after a while.

generally speaking, continuity is the key.

I am behind a router, ports forwarded, cable, with rare IP changes.

osu_uma--I don't know how to read the code that decides the criteria for UP, but do know quitting and restarting isn't necessary: just use File->Disconnect; File->Connect (with Preferences->Disable Ultrapeer UNchecked). This doesn't seem to affect current uploads or downloads.

Even the uptime isn't as much of a factor as expected. After a completely clean install (even a new IP last week), I only had to run for a couple of hours before this worked. If after a couple times when all hosts built up and dropped too low, I'd change the Pref on the go once about 6 connected (vendors showed and IP's resolved into named sources). This would allow LW to operate as a "false leaf", building up to about 32-35 Ultrapeer hosts in ~10 minutes. I just tested this again successfully within minutes of starting up LW once I got home.

Did you map 6346 as TCP only, or TCP and UDP? I currently map for "All"6346. The OSX firewall just says 6346, so I'm guessing it means UDP, TCP, and others.

Does dropping hosts relate (cause or correlation?) to the displayof the vendor info and the dotted IP resolving into a named IP for you too?

just tried a direct connection with my static IP and the firewall off (and yes--forced IP off). I've been an UP for about 45 mins, connected to 50-60 hosts, but most only last a few minutes. Uploads are still lousy (can't see a big difference between UL's as leaf behind a router or as UP with a direct connection). I guess I'm using my bandwidth to pass on gnutella messages, so maybe that's helping?

[edit--sam: CPU % stayed between 27 and 46; very reasonable I think]

hi stief -- if your concern with cpu usage is related to compression, then the stats you should look at are under advanced->gnutella->compression. to actively allow compression, goto your preferences and choose advanced->compression, and make sure that both options are UNCHECKED.

hi sam--no problem with cpu usage here; I've always allowed compression (looks like a good idea), but would really like to set up so I give more than I take and let the rest of the family use the net.

The stats are a great help learning what gnutella does. Do let us know what info would help the project (and what comments get in the way!). btw--as an UP, 2:3 looks to be the ratio of actual:potential for both up and down.

hey... there's a lot of OSX users who can't connect in the 'connection' section of the forum. they all seem to be connected to the internet but limewire gives them the 'brief green dot'.

i have no OSX and can't reproduce the problem. has any of you had problems of that kind with 10.2.x and 2.9.10.

Same here. I'm running as an Ultrapeer, and get nearly no positive answers to my search. If I select leaf mode, I get much more results.

Why not make it an option to disable DNS lookup.

Sometimes I seem to get better results, running LimeWire in ultrapeer mode, so I guess it's still a little luck involved in searching.

hi trap_jaw

if not too difficult, would you tell me how to "disable DNS Lookups" so I can test this . . . or say why not to bother?

ps--sigh--care to say why you changed your nic again? Whim I appreciate, but if politics . . . in the few months here, haven't seen any reason for you to be banned.

I don't think you can disable DNS lookups. But I could try adding an option to do that. - Provided I find the time, - I've been a rather busy lately.

P.S.
The banning is a personal argument with one of the mods (who is not actively posting here anymore). I told him I can change my eMail-address & create a new account more quickly than he could ban me, and now he seems to be testing my persistance.

DNS lookups are minor compared to partial file sharing and your studies, but thanks for the suggestion. Just thought the DNS behaviour might be related to the problems being an Ultrapeer behind slower routers on OSX (your favourite OS). I'll see if I can test with a better router in the meantime.

Sorry to hear about the argument--glad your persistance is strong. Lots of us know about symptoms of problems with gnutella, but I rely on your regular posts to separate coincidence and platform specific problems from code problems. You even have solutions! Thanks for continuing to post. Perhaps the mod would either chip in and help or get out of the way.

Hmmm--The Unforgiven is one of Clint Eastwood's best movies. What's the statute of limitations in this forum?

Usually, DNS lookups arent very expensive, - mainly because they are often quite slow.

By the way, it just occurred to me that if you hide the Connection View, LimeWire should never do DNS-Lookups, because the hostname is not requested by the GUI.

not router or DNS
 

Well, well well-- I went and got a new router (Linksys BFSR 41 v2) to test drive, but much as I hoped to see an improvement--couldn't. As a true Ultrapeer, the number of Current Hosts fluctuated in the low 50's.

Since hiding connection view, the number seemed to fluctuate in the high 50's, going up to 64 for a moment or two, but also down to the high forties. Thanks for the tip . . . I'll take the router back and save a few bucks.

So, can't repeat et voilà's stability as an ultrapeer behind a router: it's not the router nor the DNS lookups. Plenty of bandwidth, processor power. Looks like life as a leaf is not leeching since uploads actually are better, searches are fine, and downloads work quite well. I can always connect directly when the family doesn't need the net and run as an UP then.

I'm out of ideas what else to try since Windows is not an option :p

+1 that. trap, you are pretty essential to this forum. there's not too many people who really understand limewire and find the time to give advice to the newcomers.

steif, regarding the router: you sure it's the newest firmware? don't bother getting a pc. i have a linksys too on a athlonXP 1500, but voila's g3 imac somehow seems to do better. my firmware is pretty old.

thanks for the heads-up on the firmware osu uma: it was a few versions behind (now up to 1.44.2, Dec 13 2002) and a pain to set up through the ibook. Still--interesting.

2.9.11 has now been an UP connected to 46-52 hosts for 1/2 an hour: Seems to be working. I couldn't find a changelog, but maybe some parameter has changed with the new version?

et voilà--would you mind saying which Linksys and firmware you used?

linksys BEFSR41 with firmware
1.44.2, Dec 13 2002, it's easy to upgrade with MacTFTP Client.

merci et voilà--the that's the set-up I've now been using (MacTFTP was easy; wading through the windows jargon to get there was not!), and have been running as an UP most of the last 24 hours. Still a few problems lurking, but 2.9.11 is a major success re UP connections as far as I can see.

I still haven't seen a steady 58-64 hosts though: with 2.9.11 I'm noticing ~40 this AM (IP forced), ~34 this PM (IP unforced). Running with UP's in the 30's only uses about 10-20% of my CPU, so is quite civilized. Some hosts have been connected for >3hrs.

I wonder if the UP parameters changed with this last release, or whether the number of ultrapeer connects to other ultrapeers depends on network demands.

(did see some impossible connection rates in stats once that knocked out my internet services)

(btw I'm mapping a separate port to each computer for LW. How do you get multiple clients to connect without conflict?)

That idea already occured to me. What about if you are in another pane of the GUI (Searches) would it still lookup hosts ?

MTU sizes
 

Stief,

This is probably a wild horse, but have you any idea what the TCP/IP MTU is on your Mac, and what it is set on your Linksys router ? If you have an ADSL line, your router's MTU might be a bit smaller than 1500 (maybe 1480 or so). Just try changing the MTU on your mac for a short time to 1450 or so and see it it makes a difference.

à Stief: you're fowarding the port to your machine in http://192.168.1.1/Forward.htm ? I've had no problems with that. Don't forget to check the TCP and UDP protocols. Then in Limewire I go in Advanced and and change the to port (in Port and Firewall) you've determined before. Also note that disabling OS X built in firewall is a good idea, because it slows down the mac, plus you're behind a router wich is the best firewall you can buy. (anyway I'll never enable a firewall or add an antivirus software to a mac, it's a total waste of $$$ and processor).

À +

Thanks et merci guys! Your suggestions really help cut down the trial-and-error solo approach! Hope this helps others and is not too off-topic

Erik--I read somewhere about setting the MTU for Macs, so I'll hunt that up again and post back. Worth a try. My cable connection is capped at 1 Mbit/sec up and down.

à et voilà--yes, except I use http://192.168.59.1/Forward.htm. Since I set for Static IP WAN, I also set each internal IP in the Advanced->Static Routing pane (this was recommended by tech support for my previous software). I wonder about setting the hop count. As much as possible, I tend to leave everything at default. I've tried the firewall on (open to 6346) and off without noticing much difference, so I tend to leave it on (laptop goes to work every day).

Current hosts still show high 30's this AM with cpu% usually in the 20's. With IP's unforced, the iMac G4 is connected to me as a leaf, so that works (but really messes up the stats if files are transferred!). Hiding Connections does seem to help too, but curiously, LW will sometimes disappear in Process Viewer's list when I view connections.

In the Forwarding pane I didn't touch the UPnP or Port Triggering , but here's how it looks for the record

De rien Stief (Bienvenue in international French). The benefit of not having firewall is quite obvious. You can receive connections from firewalled hosts. This mean that you can be an ultrapeer for everybody. Moreover the greatest benefit is that your success rate for three stars results is much better since three stars results are often people firewalled that can't accept uploads to other firewalled hosts. As a result, the speed you get from them is often very fast (they upload less).

Ciao

Salut et voilà I updated to the Linksys 1.45.6, Jun 24 2003 yesterday, and uploads seem a bit more erratic. Avez-vous noté quelque chose?

Stief, I gotta say you are synchronized!!! Really! I've had courriels problems (can't send more than few kilobytes courriels) with sympatico with firmware 1.45.6 since I installed it this summer. I thought the problem was on their side (as usual) and I even lost one hour with their lousy tech support this week! I've since done extensive tests (friday) and figured out that the culprit was the router! I've downgrade the firmware version to 1.44.2 ( ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/befsr41/ ) and no more courriels problems! I think the version 1.45.6 is for the befsr41 version 3 a model I've found on their website, hence the incompatibility.

Ah--merci! I was in contact with Linksys tech support (1-800-326-7114) trying to find out which firmware version I should be using. They emailed me the new update, and reassured me the v3 was also for my v2.

I'll downgrade--versiontracker comments were not good, and now I have to find out about "courriels" Like "packets?"

Merci encore une fois.

hahaha! courriels=emails en anglais!

Aaargh! The Sherlock translator and Google didn't reveal that!
Think we should appeal to some coder for a java application that will diagnose the quality of a gnutella connection?

et voilà--I get a GUI freeze when LW is in the background with the "About" or "preferences" window open, and then click on the dock. Jens-Uwe and Sam are on it.

The about and preferences issues on OS X should be all set in 3.5.6.