the downloads are to slow..
 

I have a high speed connection, but if i go downloading a DivX (or other) from different Users he come's not higher then 10KB per sec. programs like Kazaa and Direct is it no problem what up!?

They upload is ****ed up!? or something else? i have try now 5 users 5 diffefrent divx they al slow.

hey,

help deze arme Nederlander eens.

Greetz,,

The realtime speed is'nt really that real to me, I left one Dl'in on about 3k, when I returned in about 1hr it had done almost 90mb.. but it still said around 3k.. My problem is that it seems to transmit as much data as it downloads.. I fired up atguard and to a single IP over an hour it downloaded 24mb and uploaded 23.5 ...why the hell! I asked.. the same scenario on Kazza uploads about 400bytes.. after the spyware is blocked..

And no knowbody was uploading from me, what I know of it anyhow?

This makes me wonder what the hell it's doing.. Is it checking download status continously??

Little bit of stats,

Statistics - 23/10/2001

Group: Network Connections

Sent Recv Time

Kazaa.exe 343 1591205 6:05
Kazaa.exe 342 3769764 18:25


xolox.exe 3596340 3412730 1:18:08 < i pay ADSL:mad:
xolox.exe 5207499 4062065 1:18:19


I tried to compare file size, sent,recv. Not performance, obviously
in kazaa favour for performance. I find they're equal generally.

It would be a completely different IP for an Upload and therefore
should have Hi sent low recv, but in xolox this isn't the case..
Considering my connection is 256/512 it makes me wonder what
happens to my download speed when the upload reaches more
than 32kbyte p/s :confused:

Totally agree, the fact that I don't have the bandwidth (15KB/s uploads / 100 KB/s download) and having people downloading as much as I'm downloading is hurting my downloads. If I had the bandwidth, I wouldn't be complaining.

I would like to specify the # of concurrent connections and the bandwidth associated to these. For example, 1 concurrent connection @ 7KB/s. Way better than having 3-4 @ 1.xx each.

And what is up with that display grid area?

Other than that, it's great. I like to no add popups (compared to Kazaa latelly), no account creation, ability to find alot more different things (than Kazaa)...

Since XoloX runs on the gnutella network, a TOTALLY de-centralized network, your bandwidth is used for "running the network" like a KaZaA "Supernode" if you have to pay for bandwidth, you may want to use a non-gnutella program that has a server to do the search and indexing,
There are many to chose from at http://www.zeropaid.com

The reason for the stats above were to show the diference between Kazaa and xolox.

When downloading 3mb on kazaa with no uploads the sent data is about 100/500 bytes

under the same scenario with xolox the sent would be 2.5/3.5mb..

The original Q. was why if there based on the same "supernode" infrastructure?

This is based over several days of monitoring not just a few downloads! Maybe my supernode is not used by the current user
base of kazza, but i'm central to the xolox network. I dunno??

In Kazaa, I beleive the option, 'act as supernode', is unchecked by default. While in Xolox, it seems it's always on (and there is no way to turn it off)

XoloX does not work with supernodes
 

Hi!

Unlike Kazaa (and others) XoloX does not work with supernodes. So there are no computers who act like central XoloX-servers.

However when you use XoloX people can also download files from you, so that's why you see transfers in the uploads-screen (visible in the transfers section). Because XoloX is based on the Gnutella protocol, there is also a lot of overhead information (e.g. search queries) that everybody has to put through. This is an average load of 3 kb/s which is why Gnutella-based clients are less suitable for modem users and this also explains why your computer seems to act like a supernode: everybody performs server and client tasks.

Greetz,
David

Team XoloX

If everybody does everything, wouldn't this kind of slow down the network? For instance, I'm on DSL (100KB/s down, 15KB/s up). 15KB/s is more than regular modems, but still isn't alot considering the files which can be sent. Whenever I'm uploading alot, it affects my download speed considerably.

In light of the critics about how slow download speed are, have you identified or found any solutions to it? I'm up on 3 days on a download, when surely, I should be done by now.

Great stuff!

Maybe all the users with that file are on dialup connections, with uploads, and downloads running.

There is no doubt that the Gnutella system less efficient than a server or supernode based system. That weakness, however, is also a strength because of the lack of infrastructure it is nearly impossible to shut down and there are no infrastrure costs.

So Napster was more efficient but it also was targeted and killed off. Sometimes efficientcy comes with a different price.

Higher bandwidth users are less likely to notice this problem than lower bandwidth users and at 15k/s for uploads, you're not exactly burning up the rubber.

Perhaps you should consider switching to cable if they are about the same price in your area. At least my uploads go to 50k/s or so.

I know of people in different areas which have a higher upload speed, almost 3x as fast. So, it's possible to have higher speeds in DSL lines - just not where I'm at. As for my DSL line, I like the consistent speeds it gives me. (I think that a cable connection couldn't give me that due to it's nature)

However, I think the best solution would be to have the client respect the settings that the users sets. For instance, If I set it to use a max of X KB/s, it should. I could then limit the bandwidth up to have better download speeds. (Right?)

No. ADSL uses different frequencies for upload and download. If you were uploading a file at your maximum capacity, not one bit of your available download bandwidth would be used. Open it us so others can get a better download speed.

"No. ADSL uses different frequencies for upload and download. If you were uploading a file at your maximum capacity, not one bit of your available download bandwidth would be used. Open it us so others can get a better download speed."

This is not true. The main problem with, for example, a 512/64 ADSL connection, is that when you are uploading you almost can't download because the acknowledgement packeged can't be uploaded as fast as they should be. This is expecially a problem with the dutch ADSL mxstream. So when I am uploading my download speed decreases considerably. So, you are true if you're speaking at the lowest hardware levels of the ADSL technolegy, but at the ATM and TCP/IP level there is a lot needed overhead for uploading files. Since the upload speed isn't that high your download speed is suffering very much when you are uploading a file.

Exactly.

Not true for TDSL (ADSL from german Telekom).
Here the upload stream is split from download stream.

Maybe my situation is different for some odd reason. I have my setting at max. The highest out going rate I've witnessed from my computer is 75% of my upstream capacity. That leaves 25% for Xolox and ACKs, general overhead, etc. When someone with a good pipe pulls files from me, I see no performance loss in my downloads. My download speed remains the same. I'm leaving my setting at max so someone can get a file if they need it. I'd rather have them in and out in a few minutes than have them nibble at me for three days.

I guess it might just depend on your ISP... I know for mine, at max, my downloads are very slow. As soon as I limit the bandwith up, my downloads accelerate...but not to a point that i'm happy with.