Limewire downloads far and few anymore
 

Getting substantially less downloads these past few months.
Program is dead.

Why can't any filesharing program stay good for any period of time. They all get bad after a while

I have similar results with several of the popular clients... (Limewire, Bearshare, Xolox, Shareaza) I think this issue is more the state of health of the Gnutella network than a problem with Limewire or any single client - other than possibly Morpheus.

Re: Limewire downloads far and few anymore
 

I agree. This program is dying. Is it do to less people sharing files or what?

There are a couple of bad clients destroying the network.

We're working on some features that might help mitigate this problem.

fewer downloads
 

I disagree - despite the influx of non limewire ultrapeers (especially morpheus - which admitedly don't offer as much as LW) I'm getting as much if not more than ever - in fact, I've been able to progressively cull my files of 128kb versions and replace them with much higher bit rate versions. Sure the network is sometimes a bit unstable but it always has been and always will be, its just the nature of p2p systems.

I'm receiving less search results indeed and I believe it's something to do with Morpheus Ultrapeers not being grouped together like LimeWire ultrapeers were. (there ratio of ultrapeer connections : 0.6 connections is something like 1:1 instead of 2:1)

The latest cvs code tries to cope with it by glueing LimeWire ultrapeers together more closely (not agressively enough if you ask me). I think it would be even more important to make the leaf nodes prefer LimeWire ultrapeers for optimal performance. I've been playing around with preferring LimeWire ultrapeers recently and I believe it might be benificial, - especially if LimeWire will use GGEP pongs (and other new features) which other ultrapeers might not necessarily understand.

Agreed, in general the number of search results has gone down over the last couple of months. On a positive note, though, I have noticed recently that I'm getting some results on music files that I wasn't getting before. The influx of ex-AG users, perhaps?

Bad Vlad, where the hell are you finding music?
 

The selection on Limewre is pathetic for anything besides mainstream drivel. When I do find something of interEst, I can get only 1-5 out of 100 requests.

Is it me, or does the Limewire/Gnutella network suck?

I really miss Audio Galaxy. I can only find a fraction of what was on there. While I share my large collection, it seems no one else is, AS I TYPICALLY HAVE 10% OF ALL AVAILABLE FILES!!!!! and I really am getting frustrated at the lack of songs that successfully download.

Out of 50 ***** songs I found, I was only able to download 4.

Why do they show up, if we can't download them?

Why can't Limewire fix this to show only the files that are online, so we don't have to waste out friggin time requesting the same songs that never download?????

70% OF GNUTELLA USERS DON'T UPLOAD
 

Well, I guess I found out why the selecton here sucks. With my files making up normally 10% of what is connected in the statistics, I am beyond frustrated at not only the lack of files, but the lack of the few files that I find, few if any download at all. What are we suppose to do now??? Why should I stay & make this better, if there is nothing to make better? Where are other post Audio Galaxy users going to find the music they can't find on Limewire/Gnutella???

Here is the info: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/is...dar/index.html

----------------------
An extensive analysis of user traffic on Gnutella shows a significant amount of free riding in the system. By sampling messages on the Gnutella network over a 24-hour period, we established that almost 70% of Gnutella users share no files, and nearly 50% of all responses are returned by the top 1% of sharing hosts. Furthermore, we found out that free riding is distributed evenly between domains, so that no one group contributes significantly more than others, and that peers that volunteer to share files are not necessarily those who have desirable ones. We argue that free riding leads to degradation of the system performance and adds vulnerability to the system. If this trend continues copyright issues might become moot compared to the possible collapse of such systems.

Don't forget the most important part of the document:
Paper received 8 August 2000; revision received 19 September 2000; accepted 27 September 2000.

What, it being almost 2 years old?
 

I wonder if that figure is higher now? All I know is I was able to download each & every file I requested on Audio Galaxy & I didn't use Limewire for months. I found the most obscure music imagineable. Now with Limewire, I get about 10% of my requests, and that is stretching it quite a bit...

I deleted the Gnutella servers from my preferences, and I am only using the Limewire router. Would that cut down on the number of successful finds or downloads? I set it up to allow uploads only 25%, and I kick off any non limewire connections. What else can I do to find the obscure songs? I can't listen to most modern commercial music, which is crap.

For example, the only song by the ****** I can find is the Jackass theme, which is correctly titled ******. They recorded dozens of songs, but I can't find more than one.

Can anyone be of any help?

A frustrated JiLm... :0(

re: bad_vlad where the the hell are you finding music
 

I stand by my comments but there are a couple of issues here - yes there are fewer LW ultrapeers and morpheus folk seem a tad stingy but we need to carefully distinguish between user characteristics and software architecture - morpheus ultrapeers are not as good as LW ultrapeers because half the time they shouldn't be ultrapeers at all but the software defaults position them that way anywayz - and at least they do offer files (more than indicated by the file counts) - I think a bigger problem is the way both BS and LW 'preference' themselves and so 'clump' the network (I NEVER!!! get anything through a BS ultrapeer) - the other issue is the short lifespan of the connection to ultrapeers - I never get a 'fix' that lasts more than a minute or two (the lineup of hosts is incredably volatile - unecessarily so I would've thought) - the upside is that the return from search results is equaly volatile but the downside of this is of course that too often listed results are outdated by the time I've scrolled down to them - whatever - my experience is still that with PATIENCE its possible to locate and download very obscure high bit rate versions of files that simply cannot be obtained otherwise (eg the 320 kb unreleased studio version of Patti Smith doing "when doves cry" that took me week to get a complete download of) - even with just a 56k modem connection it seems to me that I'm 'ending up' with dam fine files and ny major issues are not with non-sharing users but re-queries that aren't (as someone else said the message should really be changed to 'you're doomed') - ultrapeers that move too fast and BS that should be a 'best friend/partner' actually being the cousin that hates you

Cheers, bad_vlad

how can we make it so you only search once?
 

I see what you are saying. When I moniter the connections, they drop off so quick. Why would that be? Is there anything that can be done so a person does not have to keep on it, as I have to go to work & do other things, and I really don't have the time to keep searching over & over. That was the best part of AG, in that you search once, then leave the client going & eventually you connect.

Here, once you find something, it drops off so quick, you can't capture it. I just don't have time for repeated searches.

So, from what I gather, the Gnutella system will never work like the AG system, correct? Do you know of any AG similar system, or where they a one-of-a-kind, or am I just stuck with having to search over & over & over for the same songs? Thanks for your patience...

JiLm

I'm not clear about what is going on here. With download requeries you can start a download and you'll eventually get it. If no results are returned adding the search to the wish list will send out a query to begin a download. So it seems like LimeWire will finish the download after a period of time.

Hmmm
 

Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't used that feature yet. I'll give it a try. Thanks again for your help.

requeries, AG, and wishlists
 

I'm sure I'll be delighted if someone can show me I'm wrong but I don't know of AG type setups anywhere else - I keep reading in the groups about this or that alternative based in Poland or Uzbekistan or wherever but my experience has been that (like AG actually) they don't work for me for mysterious and inexplicable reasons (I wish I'd kept a list of all the different error messages I've been presented with) or they've crashed under the weight of visitors or they've folded because of the way they face a much greater legal risk exposure. The decentralised p2p systems are relatively safe from legal attack and are a genuinely exciting way to exploit the potential of the internet.

Re: the wishlists and requeries - its hard not to just sigh and say "get real" - the fluidity of the ultrapeer connections coupled with the real time gaps between actual requeries being sent out (as opposed to the friendly little message implying that requeries are being sent as you watch) mean that the chances of a requery resulting in a conection AND download are so close to zero its false advertising to have the button there at all

I'm interested to hear someone else bothered about the slippery ultrapeer connection - I'd be really interested to hear from a LW developer about the possibility for firstly stabilising those connections a little and secondly doing something about LW and BS giving each other the cold shoulder (so silly - both would benefit hugely from better compatability)

Cheers, bad_vlad

Limewire quality a LEMON?
 

This is totally bogus money is paid for this program and i can't even download a single file. Limewire is a Lemon ;(
And it's left a very bad taste, i'll be very sure not to reccomend limewire to anyone i know

LW 'bogus'
 

So what money? - you paid a whole 10 bucks for the pro version or you just downloaded it free like most everyone else. I obviously think there are things that could be improved about LW but to say its bogus is just silly. LW has probably the best user interface of any p2p system, it has a large user base and it quite clearly and undeniably 'works' - no its not napster or AG but those days/setups are gone (probably forever) - as a p2p system LW yields good results if you're prepared to make an effort rather than demand instant gratification - lighten up and you'll find LW is efficient and mercifully free of the icky cuteness of BS and the 'welcome to cool/insider group' feel of all those fringe programs that come and go so fast (all promising to be the killer app that'll be just as good as AG, Napster etc was - in the rosy glow of fond memory)

I can't connect at all to the LimeWire Router
 

Unable to connect to the Limewire router. I deleted the Gnutella connections prefs.

Is anyone else experiencing this, or have the cut me off?

Hi folks,

We're working to implement a remote queuing feature which will hopefully increase the number of successful downloads over time.

Avi

available files and 'slippery' ultrapeers
 

an interesting experiment to try is to use shareaza and LW immediately one after another (or concurrently I guess if you have the grunt) - what I (at least) find is two interesting things - first shareaza connects to the same sorts of clients except that BS connections are common, stable and lead to downloads (unlike LW) and two, the ultrapeer connections remain fixed for FAR longer than is the case with LW - not entirely sure which setup leads to the best results 'at the end of the day' and I prefer the LW layout/design but it does suggest that LW might usefully give attention to the ultrapeer connections cos the greater ultrapeer volatility with LW can't be just attributed to 'thats just how the network is'

Cheers, bad_vlad

The higher ultrapeer volatility is a result of the ConnectionWatchdog function LimeWire has. If you don't receive any messages from a connection for twenty seconds or so, it is kicked. LimeWire does so, to identify bad hosts quickly. It has the interesting side effect that your ultrapeer connections seem to be kicked a lot more often if you are sharing no files.

Interesting side note...
 

Shareaza also monitors connections and removes them if they are not performing, but it takes into account the traffic it would expect to get from its neighbours and tries not to remove a connection unless there is actually something wrong with it (as opposed to a traffic lull).

explaining slippery ultrapeers: not surrendering quite yet
 

OK - the connection Watchdog function is sensible and smart - but - riddle me this - in LW I have more than 800 files available for sharing and it'd be a rare moment that the available upload slots weren't fully occupied which would seem to reduce ultrapeer volatility - conversly - in shareaza I chose not to be an ultrapeer (56k dial up connection), lots of my shared files were greyed out for some reason, and because I'd only just connected I was designated a 'doubtful' host because there was no record of any uploads which would seem to increase ultrapeer volatility - and yet - I still got far more stable ultrapeer connections that included BS and (crucially) they 'worked' -- is it that the 20 secs in LW is problematic or that the shareaza monitoring that allows for 'lulls' is better in practice - whatever - the end result is that shareaza threatens to threaten the dominance of LW I reckon

Cheers, bad_vlad

The algorithm LimeWire uses is very strict and at first 80% of the connections may not last longer than a few minutes, especially if you are keeping more than 3 ultrapeers connections. - However this ultrapeer volatility is not necessarily a big issue. The longer you are running LimeWire the more stable the connections become and after a while you can be pretty sure to be connected to 'good' ultrapeers.

oh no - I can feel myself weakening
 

OK - my resistence is dissipating - but just to completely put me out of my misery - why can I succesfully download via a BS ultrapeer in shareaza but never in LW - and - still not entirely convinced about 'good' ultrapeers eventually settling in for a respectable time - instead what I find is that the volatility actually increases and the only solution is to exit LW and open up again to take advantage of the burst of connections I start with that then diminish to the point of complete disappearance

still cheery: bad_vlad

All ultrapeers do is relaying messages, like queries or search results. They have absolutely nothing to do with your downloads.
If you keep restarting LimeWire you will not get many stable connections. The best approach is, to leave it running for a while. If LimeWire doesn't seem to stay connected on its own (without reconnecting it), your uploads are probably using up most of your outgoing bandwidth, so most of the incoming gnutella messages are dropped (that can cause the connection to be dropped after a while) or you are keeping too many gnutella connections which might cause the same problem.

are we getting silly here
 

I do realise that the ultrapeers are just links - my point is that BS links work for me in shareaza but never in LW and I'm curious why that should be (I think its something to do with code whereas you seem to think its spomething to do with the way I use LW

bad-vlad

I don't understand your problem. LimeWire does connect to the new BearShare 4.0 ultrapeers without any problems. The old BearShare nodes aren't ultrapeers, so LimeWire will not connect to them while in leaf mode.

this is becoming a quest
 

this is making too much of it all but I guess I'm starting to feel like either I'm missing some really startlingly obvious point about gnutella clients or else I really am having the point of my (really rather mild) query neatly side stepped - my question is this (now that we've established I'm not marginalised as a freeloader and there is constant traffic associated with uploads) - in both shareaza and LW I'm a leaf node because of my dial up connection - but in shareaza BS has a working 'presence' for me in a way that is not the case in LW - this appears to be something to do with the differences between LW and shareaza with respect to how they each monitor ultrapeer connections - the shareaza selection criteria - are - (whatever you say) working better for me and I'm (or rather was) interested as to why that would be the case

bad_vlad