2.1.1 beta available...PRO too
 

The 2.1.1 beta is now available for download. Users of the free ad-supported version can get it from http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/download_beta . Users of the PRO version can get it with the instructions in their original sales email.

Like 2.1.0, this version allows leaves to maintain multiple ultrapeer (or 0.4) connections. This dramatically increases your search horizon. 2.1.1 also fixes some important bugs and may allow you to get even more search results than in 2.1.0.

As always, your feedback is appreciated.

Whoa, this is awesome....

not seeing any multisource downloads
 

i am on a cable line 3000 down 256 up. I am not seeing any multisource downloads. I picked search terms that i know would return over ten hosts, no need to name names. Anyway, at no time did i get a download that came from more than one source. one file supposedly had 30 sources, but when i went to download, i was only pulling from one source. just thought i would let you know.

"2.1.1 also fixes some important bugs"
cydoor is back in this installer :(

feel sorry
 

man i feel sorry for you windows users with all the spyware crap. not just in limewire, i am talking about in general. viruses, trojans, spyware. damn.

windows :x I'm a FreeBSD user :]


Just b/c 30 other people have the same file doesnt mean you're going to get multiple-source download for that particular file everytime. They have to meet requirements and etc. Most of the time they're "firewalled" users with the private addresses so you cant really download from them anyways.

Because you have a NAT/firewall doesn't mean that other users can't download from you .
I have all LW/Gnutella related connections forwared to my server from where I run LW and people can download normal from me (witout sending push requests and other firewall crap)

ATT LIMEWIRE :Is having multiple ultrapeers a quick fix?
 

Dear Limewire team
Is having multiple ultrapeers a temporary solution to increase connectivity while the network is restructuring? I m no expert but it sounds like having multiple ultrapper connections may create unneccesary traffic and reduce network efficiency? From what Ive been told on the Fasttrack network, clients are connected to only 1 superpeer with a connectivity of 500,000 users. Perhaps this is because their network is completely structured?
I do like the new beta version though. Its great to have better connectivity.
I think eventually ultrapeer technology will connect everyone. I m patient.
Thanx

I know that but if you would of read what I had written, you could see I said PEOPLE WITH PRIVATE ADDRESSES, meaning 192.168.*.*. and 10.*.*.* addresses (not public addresses). But if you force your IP to the public address the world sees you as then of course people can download from you. I am also behind a NAT'd machine. I also redirect port 6346 to my machine and force my IP to my public address.

I know you said that ...
What's your point ?

Having multiple Ultrapeer connections may be a temporary change until Ultrapeers become better internally connected. If all of your neighbors are connected to ~50+ hosts, then you need less fanout. However, there is some value in redundancy as we have found. I expect that we will always keep at least 2 Ultrapeer connections.
The question is, how smart do Ultrapeers become from this point on. If they can guarantee the user a good experience then we don't need as much redundancy.

Given that there is a controlled flow of messages between Ultrapeers and leafs, the only real waste with multiple Ultrapeers is connection slots. As always, broadcast messages have to be kept to a minimum. Query reach without broadcasting may be the next main area for innovation.

Should the network rely on Ultrapeers ?
 

Hi guys,
just a little question...
As far as I understand the concept, it relys on ultrapeers having a very fast connection. In contrast to the "millions" of normal cable/DSL-users these can only be a few T1-luckys...

Is it really sensible to rely a peer2peer-Network on relatively small number on T1-People. Shouldn't the concept rather base on

1) normal Cable/DSL-users
2) add host-caching to the ones with a big upstream
3) provide ultrapeers to the big connection people
4) use all ways of connecting...if theres an ultrapeer, fine, if not, then continue as previously..

Please let me know, what you think about my (probably unqualified) thoughts !

Now I will try the new beta...keep up the good work

Gucky

Cable/DSL users are ultrapeers its not just T1+ connections.

VTOLfreak: If you would of understood what I was saying when I was said "Most of the time they're "firewalled" users with the private addresses", you wouldnt of made the comment about you can download from firewalled hosts. If you noticed that when you do a search and get results back PRIVATE ADDRESSES are the only addresses that show in red. Because PRIVATE ADDRESSES are not in the public domain (the internet). Meaning, that machine is sitting on some network that the outside world cant see (common sense will tell you, its behind NAT'd/router/firewall machine ) but it still has an outside connection b/c of course its connecting to the gnutella network. Well anyways in all, it means those hosts do not have port forwarding on their gateway or have any idea what their public address (the force ip thing). Even though I have forced my IP, I dont show up in red when people look at their results from me. The PRIVATE ADDRESSES are where PUSH REQUESTS come into play. B/c the push request has to travel back to the host that PRIVATE ADDRESS HOST is connected to and that host could be the max total of 7 hops away. So between you and the PA host that message may get dropped (I'm just explaing push requests as I'm on the subject). Anwyays I wasnt saying you couldnt download from NAT'd hosts. Most people call it "firewalled" hosts aka the private addresses that show up in red in the results. So thats why I clearly said, "firewalled" hosts with private addresses. But truly, I've had a grouped result with 15 sources and all of them were coming from private addresses and that was what I was trying to explain.

Sorry , I know how all this works but I forgot that most people don't even know what NAT is .
And that those same people haven't done anything about it .

Re: ATT LIMEWIRE :Is having multiple ultrapeers a quick fix?
 

that it wrong.
fasttrack's supernode work pretty much same way as limewire's ultrapeer.
fasttrack doesn't have "master" server other than initial server used to start connections..kinda like router4.limewire.com

it's existing in every single client so you can see evenatual benefit of such technology...

little bug
 

I'm loving this beta 2.1.1 ... getting great search results. just wanted to share with you one little bug i've noticed: no matter how many hosts i tell it to connect to, when limewire first starts up, it will only connect to three. i have it set to nine, so i have to highlight the nine at the bottom of the connections pane and type '9' again. then it connects to nine hosts. (i'm using the osx version)

Also another little thing ... chat windows seem to have a hard time staying connected ... this may just have to do with the connections of people trying to chat with me.

Anyway, once again, great job on 2.1.1!

Hi unregistered. Thanks for the feedback. The "3 hosts" issue actually isn't a bug; it's a feature. :) Leaf nodes try to maintain 3 ultrapeer connections by default, regardless of what you configured. This is really the best thing for the network. However, if you change the number of connections AFTER you become a leaf, LimeWire will heed your request, at least until you disconnect. (We learned from 2.0.x that users really like to be able to fiddle with things.)

Hi LimeWire-Team!

Bought LimeWire Pro and I think this was the best I could have done! Thanks for the best sharing-software ever!

But can't you put a option in the Options-Menu, so that I can choose if I want to connect to only 3 hosts at the start or if I want to connect to as many hosts as I want?
This would be very nice!

Regards from Germany, Torsten!

The LimeWire team set it to 3 as a default. The whole purpose of ultrapeers was to decrease network traffic among low-bandwidth host. The reason they have implemented the "multiple ultrapeer" connection feature is to make assurance you are pretty well connected to a large group of hosts. Before Ultrapeers were not well connected b/c LimeWire was the only client with this techonolgy. This is helping ultrapeers grow among the network. So hopefully other clients such as BearShare, Gnuleus and etc will join in on the ultrapeer connectivity. Then you'll only to have one Ultrapeer connection to be connected to the same amount of hosts as you were with the group when connected to multiple ultrapeers. I come this clears things up.