Ultrapeer vs Gnutella
 

Hi everybody!

I've been lately trying the new Limewire 1.9 to 2.01 (Linux) and the new Superpeer protocol. It seems to me that this new protocol has very good advantages for modem users, but also many disadvantages for DSL users.

DLS is usually very asymmetric, thus you may have 512 Kbps (or 256 Kbps) for downloads, but just 128 Kbps for uploads. This means that you can't run LW in Ultrapeer because it will use all your outgoing bandwidth (and then you'll loose ingoing bandwidth too). But you could still be able to accept Gnutella clients in the v0.4 way, however as soon as you are connected to an ultrapeer, no more connections are accepted.

This Ultrapeer protocol seems to split the network in two:

-Ultrapeers connected between themselves
-Leaves connected to ultrapeers

There is no room for the standard client-server Gnutella. I don't think this is a good idea if both can't be integrated.

I would like to know other's opinion about this.

LimeWire trheads regular 0.4 protocol connections like it was an ultrapeer connection .
So what are you talking about ?

I think you don't fully understand the new leave/ultrapeer networking sheme yet .
So please read up on the subject before you post complaints .
The LW site should have this subject covered in their manuals .
Ultrapeer has been around since version 1.9 .

You are probably right, I don't fully understand this new ultrapeer, but I'M NOT COMPLAINING AT ALL! If you read my message, probably you will understand something... What I said is that when LW connects to an Ultrapeer, it won't accept incoming connections. At least this happens in my Linux. I've been testing LW 1.9 and 2.x, but I'm still using Phex because swarm downloads don't seem to work for me, and Phex runs much better when unattended.:(

BTW, I did read all current threds when I posted that message, I'm not new to Gnutella.

that makes better use of your 128kbps
 

>LW connects to an Ultrapeer, it won't accept incoming >connections. At least this happens in my Linux.

Ultrapeer seems to reduce message passing and likely drops bad 0.4 connections. Leaf clients (modem users) pass messages only when they search or positively respond to a search. I believe the ultrapeer the leaf clients connect to keeps a file list for them (?) and so they may only get upload requests.

?

The whole point of Ultrapeer is that you wont have to make connections yourself .

Good for low-bandwihdt users .

The whole point is not to make less connections. The whole point is to increase network efficiency, connectivity and size.

The problem is that when my computer, that has a fast DSL (512 Kbps), connects to an Ultrapeer, it won't accept incoming connections. So LW is not giving available slots for others to connect to. I'm not allowing Ultrapper mode either, since the upward channels is only 128 Kbps.

Also connecting to an Ultrapeer won't warrant a better position in the Gnutella network, than 3 or 4 standard 0.4 Gnutella connections. This means that you get less results. And this is what I've seen after many days with LW working. Phex still gets many more results and it will accept incoming connections for other users.

IMHO this Ultrapeer seems to me an excellent choice for modem users (they will connect to an Ultrapeer that handles all network traffic), and for T1, T3 and some cable users that can work as Ultrapeers with more than one ultrapeer connection, but not for DSL users.