ultrapeer problem.
 

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..

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.

yep, same here too.

by design (I think)
 

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.)

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.


self-explanatory.

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.


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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ?

Just read the post where I was describing Adam's explaination on how Ultrapeers work earlier on this thread.

Just as an addition, it actually handles these messages very intelligently, using essentially a "Bloom filter" to very efficiently communicate not all of the file names that a client has, but merely a very small representation of all of those file names that both the client and the UltraPeer understand. So, the UltraPeer never really knows what files the client has, just an efficient representation of those files.

I still think there is a miscommunication taking place:
If I understood one of the early posters (on this thread), their experience was that their copy of Limewire 1.9beta would become an UltraPeer and THEN drop all other connections (e.g. modem users) when it discovered another UltraPeer.

This was my 1st point yesterday.

Since you didn't address this, can we assume that this is not what is supposed to happen, and that I either misunderstood that previous post, or that they were reporting a bug?
- Tony

Tony-

I think there's a bit of confusion between the label on the lower left of the connections tab that reads either "UltraPeer" or "Client" in brackets and what you are actually acting as. The label at the lower left simply indicates whether or not we have measured that you are capable of becoming and UltraPeer. Whether or not you are actually acting as an UltraPeer is determined by whether or not you have connections where the protocol is listed as "leaf."

The earlier posts did not explicitly state that the user was really an UltraPeer and then disconnected all cllient connections when it found another UltraPeer. This would be very surpising, and is something we have definitely coded against. Rather, it is very possilbe, and even a frequent occurence, for a node to be UltraPeer-capable (but not actually acting as an UltraPeer), and to disconnect all other connections when it encounters another UltraPeer.

If any of the earlier posters thinks that this is not the case, please let me know. Also, if anyone else sees the behavior that Tony descibed, please let us know. From my reading of the earlier posts, however, this was not the case.

Thanks.

Ultrapeer policy
 

Something is still wrong with the current Ultrapeer implementation.

1. When you were connected to an ultrapeer and lost the connection, you are left without any connections. This happens to me every 15 minutes or so.

2. I know the horizon of an Ultrapeer is not accurately measurable for now, but in fact I get much fewer results when I am connected as Leaf.

3. Technical question: Why don't you insert additional tiers into the network. Wouldn't it be better to have level-1 ... level-N peers instead of just Ultrapeer or Leaf status. I mean the idea sould work even better with more than 2 levels.

When you lose your UltraPeer connection, you should be automatically reconnected to the network. You are permanently disconnected when you lose the UltraPeer? Can you repeat this? I would also recommend using the LimeWire 1.9c beta, released yesterday.

As far as the N-tier network goes, this is in effect what UltraPeers do, as the UltraPeers only allow as many new connection as they handle.

We are aware of the issue with getting fewer results. This should change pretty quickly when the UltraPeer implementation becomes the final release version, as this will effectively increase the number of hosts reached with each search.

Ho do the Ultrapeer
 

Just installed the LW 2.0 beta and tried it. After 5 min. or so it found an ultrapeer, which is fine, since I'm on a slow 256/128 adsl line.

Now....here's something I think doesn't work quite right, or should be fixed.

If my understanding of the ultrapeer idea is right, the ultranode gets a list of files I'm sharing when you connect to the node.

It seems that when I choose to add more files I'd like to share with the community, the ultralist nodes "list" doesn't get updated? shouldnt this happen?

It might be solved be reconnectiong to the network, but IMHO this isn't the fanciest solution.

how files are updated
 

Technically ultrapeers don't have a list of your files; they have funky routing tables constructed by hashing keywords of the file names.

But to answer your question: LimeWire will send incremental updates to ultrapeers every five minutes. So those files will be searchable by the world. In the future, we hope to get rid of that five minute delay.

-Christopher Rohrs

Why?
 

How do I know whether I myself am an Ultrapeer, or whether I am connected to one?

It says client near the bottom and it says I am connected to 1 Ultrapeer. I would like to be an ultrapeer not the other way round. I have adsl. Thanks.

Chris

Not all that bad
 

If your are the ultrapeer yourself you still have some control over everything :

If you have 6 in the tab "connections to make"
LW will make 50 leaf connections and 6 Ultrapper or 0.4 conections .

So if you come against a Ultrapeer with say 50 leafs and only 2 other connections you're scrued .

But if you find a Ultrapeer with 50 leafs and +10 connections with enough bandwidht , youre in .

I'm running an ultra peer with about 40-50 leafs and 6 connections , my connection is 80% saturated with 100% peaks .
I'm getting very good search results .

BTW
 

You can force LW into Ultapeer mode by editing the limewire.props file in your LW dir .

I had to do this because the search results sucked in client mode and my cable modem was just sitting there .

Confusion abt ultrapeer
 

My biggest bit of confusion about the whole ultrapeer thing is that in options, you have a check box to DISABLE ultrapeer, but to me it doesn't seem to make any difference - you STILL switch over to ultrapeer in your connections tab.

??

DFM

In the connections tab it says you are connected to one .
Not that you are one .

This is probably the main point of confusion for people .

Ultrapeer persits
 

Even though I have ultrapeer disabled, I can not get back to my usual 10 connections, just the one poxy so called ultrapeer connection. Can anyone tell me how to get back to normal? When I try and remove the connected host after two seconds the ultrapeer thing comes back.

the more use it the better it will get?
 

Ok, from what I have read so far the thinking goes that the more people start using the new ultrapeer system the better it will get. This would be great but it seems to overlook on thing, if anyone is reading the connection problems in the other limewire board, it seems that most people are going back to the pre-ultrapeer versions of the software. Myself included. I paid the $6 for the pro version and am consistently getting really bad search results.

Ok, as an example, I am currently running both version pro and 1.7c. Put in Alice Cooper in the search on both ... Pro version:75 / 1.7c version: 310. With results differences like that, selling this ultrapeer technology to anyone is gonna be rough. From the general sentiment I'm picking up in some other areas of this forum it isn't selling at all.

As a side note: I read a comment from one of the developers in another forum that the reason for the ad-ware and pay versions is to pay bills. A recommendation: in an arena where there are a lot of other programs out there, many rather good ones for absolutely free (no ads or charges), don't let your resume get old. If your depending on this to make your living, your walking on rather thin ice. ; ) .... I would strongly recommend not getting your hopes up about getting rich with this.

Just my thoughts,
Anomalie

Updated Documentation?
 

Tell me if I've looked in the wrong place, but after downloading v2 I looked everywhere for UltraPeer information. Searching the website for 'ultrapeer' returns no results.

I was very frustrated that I wasn't getting good search results and there appeared to be very few searches coming through. After reading this thread I understand Ultrapeer better, and have discovered that the search results actually range from bad to quite good (much like they did before Ultrapeer).

Anyway, the bandwidth reduction seems good, so I am less concerned about leaving Limewire running on my University connection now and plan on keeping it up more. Sadly I am not seeing any uploads of my 183 shared MP3 files (most fairly popular).

The point here is that this is a MAJOR new feature with no documentation. Experienced Limewire users have no idea what's going on, and they can't find any information about it. In the interests in furthuring Gnutella, I am willing to spend some time working on the documentation. I have enough programming experience (HyperTalk, Pascal, C, Java, PHP, SQL in that order) to understand algorithms and write accurate descriptions. I'd love to hack on the code too, but I don't think I have the experience to make that effective.

Acute Problems
 

Limewire - whoever you are:

I paid for LimeWire Pro 2.0. It does not work. I leave it connected for hours. It finds nothing. I have modulated all options. I understand how UltraPeer works.

I am not alone. Hundreds of users have posted regarding this problem. My friends will not use LimeWire now.

Whatever the problem is, fix it. Update your website tonight with a note that says "We know there is a problem. We are fixing it." Because we are all. very. annoyed.

-Peeved

*sigh*

Purchased LW Pro tonight cause I have had good experience with LW before. I have up until now been a Morpheus/FastTrack user. I get far far better results, faster downloads and everything generally superior with FastTrack, and even with previous versions of LW. I'm beginning to regret this purchase - token sum as it may be. I don't like throwing money away.

Someone from LimeWire - please explain why I get such crap results with this new client? Otherwise, how do I get my money back? I'll wait for Morpheus 2.0 instead - after all, it'll span the Gnutella network as well as the FastTrack, I imagine I'll get far better results with that than LW can ever dream of.

:(

Same guy as above
 

Okay, I just edited a configuration file for LW and forced it to be a supernode at all times. Back comes all my functionality! I can find files again.

Now before you say that I'm breaking your precious supernode concept by forcing myself to be one - consider that I'm not getting correct functionality from the product I purchased unless I modify the configuration file. When you get the problems ironed out - I'll consider reversing the setting.

make an ultrapeer intermediate stage
 

Fine. Ultrapeer. Whatever. In the meantime you have rendered the program essentially useless ... not that it was terribly useful on the Mac to begin with. (On that note, what is a Mac user to do in order to get a good peer-to-peer client? Is there absolutely NOTHING out there? That hurts.)

For the next several versions of Limewire, keep the ultrapeer thing up and running BUT don't cause all other connections to be dropped. I understand you are trying to seed ultrapeer slowly but surely. But no one is going to run this software if it is totally useless. I'm going to shut the piece of **** down now and go back to a previous version that at least returns some hits -- even if those hits are often unintelligible and irrelevant.

And as you get ultrapeer up and running, refine search criteria as you have started to do in Mac version 2.0.2.

I appreciate your efforts and thank you, but it sure is frustrating to have my only possible peer-to-peer client go from bad to worse.

tvg

docs for jiblet
 

The ultrapeer protocol is documented at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gd...ltrapeers.html

You will also need to read

http://www.limewire.com/developer/query_routing/

It would help...
 

... if the general Limewire docs actually applied to the new version. They don't. This makes things confusing for average people who don't find the one link to the forums page and then spend a couple of hours sifting through the good and bad posts here. The standard docs really need some updating since this is a release version now.


Colin

Sorry, I should have clarified: those documents are intended for developers interested in contributing to the LimeWire open-source effort. Yes, the user manual still needs updating.

Query Routing
 

Hi, I'm just reading your .doc about query rounting... You guys should have a look at

freenetproject.org

Maybe you can find some useful ideas there.

freenet
 

Freenet has very different goals then Gnutella. As far as I know, Freenet doesn't have keyword search. So QRP "query routing" and Freenet "query routing" are really apples and oranges.

Ok folks, we're all missing a vital point here.

I'll summarize very quickly.

1. Ultrapeer is a great idea.

2. Version 2.02 Pro doesn't do crap. I get no results for my searches, my total download bandwidth is lower, etc.

What's the fix? Someone mentioned a configuration file edit... let us in on it, even if the powers that be aren't thrilled... it'll prompt them to FIX their program maybe.

- Gurm, going back to 1.7 unless something happens pretty damn soon.

Note Bene:

Tried forcing supernode. Doesn't help, searches are still tiny or nonexistant. :(

- Gurm

Network Size
 

Maybe you should have a look at

http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/size

if you wanna know why you can't find anything.

Limewire works, but the gnutella net needs more users!!!!

Did anybody talk to Morpheus/Musiccity yet? How are they going to implement gnutella in Morpheus 2.0? will it be a full featured gnutella-node? Or just a "freeloading app"?

ignore those statistics!
 

No, no, no, those statistics are all wrong. Our crawler is no longer capable of crawling the whole network. We should take those darn numbers of the web page.

To give you a better estimate of the network size, router.limewire.com alone records over half a million unique hits a day. And that doesn't count the majority of BearShare users.

If you're getting few results, it's probably because you're a leaf node connected to a dud ultrapeer. We hope that 2.0.5--in beta today--will make the average ultrapeer better. We also have some more tricks up our sleeve for 2.0.6/2.1.0.

As mentioned previously, you can force LimeWire to be an ultrapeer and avoid leaf mode, though that requires hacking your limewire.props file.

Improvements
 

Can you elaborate on the anticpated improvements?

Colin

Colin: the code I'm working on now allows leaves to have multiple ultrapeer connections. So you get more search results and don't notice ultrapeer failures--without an increase in bandwidth!

Now THERE is something to be excited about!

Cheers!
:-)

Did you guys change installer type with BETA 2.0.5 ?
WinZip 8.1 can't crack it open anymore ...

I really hate installers , just give me a good ol' .zip file .
If some program needs an registry entry I'd rather make it by hand instead of some installer doing it for me .
You can never now exactly what an installer does besides installing your program .

No, we didn't change the installers. Are you looking for
http://www9.limewire.com/beta/2.0.5/...ireWinNoVM.zip?

Ok, thoughts:

1. If the newer versions fix things, great. 2.0.5, however, didn't do squat.

2. Results talk. If I do a search for "Lord of the Rings" on version 2.0.5, I get about 20 hits... the same search on 1.7 gets like 2000 hits. This is flatly unacceptable. Note that on 2.0.2 pro (which I paid for) I get ZERO hits.

Now, questions:

1. Do Ultrapeers talk to each other? Or am I connecting to an Ultrapeer who talks only to the other 49 leaves? That's what it seems like - as though I'm only getting the contents of about 50 machines, instead of the thousands from previous versions. Shouldn't ultrapeers talk to other ultrapeers? I mean, seriously...

2. When can we expect a pro version of 2.0.5 (or higher)? Or can I just hack the prop file? I see an adware enable/disable switch in there! (Oops, am I letting the cat out of the bag here?)

Summary:

I don't care HOW you do it, just make it so we can find files again, PLEASE? I mean, did you TEST version 2.0? Did you try running searches with it before you foisted it off on us? I can't believe you did, otherwise you never would have released the stupid thing.

- Gurm