| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: Download vs. upload |
 |
|
I'm using mulus 0.7.4 and WXP SP2 TCP patched.
I'm trying to get a higher download rates from mulus. My settings are: | Code: | max_connections_per_second = 10
max_opened_connections = 200
max_indirect_connections =100
max_sources = 10000
max_sources_per_file = 2000
max_hard_upload_rate = 45
max_hard_download_rate = 100 |
My usual UL:DL with eMule is about 1.4:1, because I like to download quickly and shate a long time, and I do not download to many things.
With mulus UL:DL is 2.5:1, a very good relation, but now I'm testing mulus, and I have a lot of many-sources-files downloading. What to do to get higher down rates?
Last edited by kinuris on Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fabtar
Sage
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 1575
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why have you set a download limit ??? 
I also suggest to raise good_client_rank over 4000... 5000 for example.I have obtained better results with sucha setting.... empirical experiment.
Have you set a an high max_concurrent_downloads?? I have this set to 90.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fabtar wrote: |
I also suggest to raise good_client_rank over 4000... 5000 for example.I have obtained better results with sucha setting.... empirical experiment.
|
Ok. I will try.
| Quote: |
Have you set a an high max_concurrent_downloads?? I have this set to 90. |
I have now 80.
Thank you, I will try these settings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knocker
professional
Joined: 05 Nov 2002
Posts: 612
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Perhaps you should raise max_sources to 20000, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fabtar
Sage
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 1575
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
1.4:1 is quite fine but yu have to inspect the behaviour on long usage .... a week for example.
This 2.6.7's issue looks interesting and worth inspecting in.
It'll be nice to use on a windows platform mldonkey 2.6.7 with ed2k/BT and the Mulus 17.4 ed2k/BT.
Some firewall..kerio for example (perhaps there are other less-invasive tools) permits to visulaize the overall number of connections relative to one application.
this is the only way to verify if there is a rela connection issue about 2.6.7 on windows platforms.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fabtar wrote: | | 1.4:1 is quite fine but yu have to inspect the behaviour on long usage .... a week for example. |
This is for a month or so
| Quote: | This 2.6.7's issue looks interesting and worth inspecting in.
It'll be nice to use on a windows platform mldonkey 2.6.7 with ed2k/BT and the Mulus 17.4 ed2k/BT.
Some firewall..kerio for example (perhaps there are other less-invasive tools) permits to visulaize the overall number of connections relative to one application.
this is the only way to verify if there is a rela connection issue about 2.6.7 on windows platforms. |
Ok. I will do it next week
Oh, you have said (at other topic) that your download "power" with mulus is equal to your father's emule, but... you are using linux, dont you? Because when I was using it, I was very satisfied with mldonkey's download "power". Is windows usage what does not work as I would like.
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fabtar
Sage
Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 1575
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh, you have said (at other topic) that your download "power" with mulus is equal to your father's emule, but... you are using linux, dont you? Because when I was using it, I was very satisfied with mldonkey's download "power". Is windows usage what does not work as I would like. |
Yes I'm using linux. Only 1 suggestion.. look for non ivasive freeware or way to monitorize connections/application..if you have an already working firewall there is no reason to break working envirment by changin' to another firewall.
Thanks&Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fabtar wrote: | | Only 1 suggestion.. look for non ivasive freeware or way to monitorize connections/application..if you have an already working firewall there is no reason to break working envirment by changin' to another firewall. |
Antivir PE, Spybot & Adaware here, I have a NAT router but no soft firewall, and as I say emule is working fine here. Anyway I'm gonna test everything, install kerio evaluation version and see what happens. I will test next week mulus, emule, mldonkey (with and without kad and overnet), and I will tell you.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiralvoice
Sage
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 3983
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@kinuris: http://mldonkey.berlios.de/modules.php?name=Wiki&pagename=WindowsSpecificAnnoyances
Checkout the "Layered Service Provider (LSP)" section
| Quote: | Windows NT family allows a very irritating thing. It's called Layer Service Providers. Applications that use this can act on other applications socket.
With LSPs any application with enough privileges can analyse, block, modify any data that a process (running on the same box as the LSP) sends over the network or to itself. |
There are well-written instructions how to check if MLDonkey is blocked
by such an app and how to get rid of it.
_________________
Link overview and precompiled cores here: http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/DownloadLinks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spiralvoice wrote: |
Checkout the "Layered Service Provider (LSP)" section
|
I know it. I was who discovered the netlimiter fail, with help of Fatbar or/and Camarade_Tux (if I remember well).
What about the stack for mlnet(mulus):
| Code: | ntoskrnl.exe!ExReleaseResourceLite+0x210
ntoskrnl.exe!PsCreateSystemThread+0x136
ntoskrnl.exe!RtlUnicodeStringToAnsiString+0x2a7
ntoskrnl.exe!NtDeviceIoControlFile+0x2a
ntoskrnl.exe!ZwYieldExecution+0xb96
ntdll.dll!KiFastSystemCallRet
WS2_32.DLL!select+0xa7
mlnet.exe+0x1a07ba
mlnet.exe+0x1a089b
mlnet.exe+0x13c97b
mlnet.exe+0x1ae935 |
Could you see something strange ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:23 am Post subject: Results |
|
|
I've tested mulus 0.76.4, mldonkey 2.6.7 and emule under windows, only ed2k enabled (not kad or overnet). I've tried to run every client for 24h (beginning at same time everyday), with default settings and a new md4_id for all them. This is what I get:
emule
| Code: |
Uploaded:3.82GB
Downloaded:2.74GB
KPF said me, when finishing test time,
out 257, in 185
|
mulus
| Code: |
Session Uptime: 0 days 23:56 hours
Client Brand| seen | Downloads | Uploads | Banned | Requests
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
unknown | 1020 5%| 18.8 0.2 2%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 4 8%| 1022 0%
new mldonkey| 1 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0 0%| 3 0%
eMule | 17064 84%| 827.9 9.8 72%| 2292.6 27.2 70%| 17 33%| 254910 87%
trusted mld | 114 1%| 47.9 0.6 4%| 75.4 0.9 2%| 0 0%| 3284 1%
shareaza | 133 1%| 43.1 0.5 4%| 92.2 1.1 3%| 12 24%| 3670 1%
aMule | 150 1%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 4 8%| 2695 1%
lPhant | 365 2%| 19.5 0.2 2%| 52.9 0.6 2%| 0 0%| 5435 2%
ePlus | 1038 5%| 128.4 1.5 11%| 370.4 4.4 11%| 9 18%| 15594 5%
eDkHybrid | 492 2%| 60.4 0.7 5%| 396.4 4.7 12%| 5 10%| 7651 3%
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
Total | 20377 | 1146.0 13.6 | 3279.8 39.0 | 51 | 294264
KPF said:
out 56, in 555
|
mldonkey 2.6.7
It saturates my connection, and I stop it afer 18 h because the poor download
| Code: |
eDonkey - Total Uptime: 0 days, 18h:38m (= 67104 seconds)
Client Brand| seen | Downloads | Uploads | Banned | Requests
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
eDonkey | 1876 2%| 17.1 0.3 13%| 68.2 1.0 3%| 0 0%| 577 1%
Overnet | 316 0%| 0.2 0.0 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0 0%| 75 0%
eMule | 73180 87%| 93.3 1.4 71%| 1935.0 29.5 84%| 5 33%| 60881 87%
trusted mld | 600 1%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0 0%| 915 1%
shareaza | 492 1%| 4.9 0.1 4%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 7 47%| 448 1%
aMule | 667 1%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 70.4 1.1 3%| 0 0%| 503 1%
lPhant | 1824 2%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 94.8 1.4 4%| 0 0%| 1631 2%
ePlus | 5242 6%| 16.3 0.2 12%| 140.1 2.1 6%| 3 20%| 4552 7%
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
Total | 84197 | 131.7 2.0 | 2308.7 35.2 | 15 | 69582
KPF: out 201, in 37 when over 15h running
|
So best upload and download: Emule. Well, I'm sure this is not true on Linux, but for windows, mldonkey and mulus there is something strange, donīt you think ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiralvoice
Sage
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 3983
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Results |
|
|
| kinuris wrote: | | there is something strange, donīt you think ? |
Please provide more information about your internet connection.
Especially MLDonkey 2.6.x, like all previous MLDonkey versions, needs a
working QOS for best performance.
_________________
Link overview and precompiled cores here: http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/DownloadLinks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:49 am Post subject: Re: Results |
|
|
| spiralvoice wrote: | | Please provide more information about your internet connection.Especially MLDonkey 2.6.x, like all previous MLDonkey versions, needs a working QOS for best performance. |
OK, here I go:
LAN card: Realtek 8139 100Mbps
Connection: 1024/512 no ISP shaping nor sharpenig - it feels really good.
Cable modem: Motorola Surfboard SB4100.
Router: Linksys WRT54G (1eth WAN, 4eth LAN + Wireless)- QoS disabled.
I have to tell you that the interface on the computer where I run mlnet seems to be saturated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiralvoice
Sage
Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 3983
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Results |
|
|
| kinuris wrote: | | I have to tell you that the interface on the computer where I run mlnet seems to be saturated. |
| Code: | eDonkey | Session Uptime: 0 days, 16h:47m | 60476 seconds
Client Brand| seen | Downloads | Uploads | Banned | Requests
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
eDonkey | 8298 4%| 93.7 1.6 5%| 34.2 0.6 7%| 0 0%| 449 1%
trusted mld | 4568 2%| 23.2 0.4 1%| 79.8 1.4 16%| 9 7%| 6898 11%
Overnet | 1147 1%| 9.9 0.2 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0 0%| 76 0%
eMule | 190923 87%| 1712.2 29.0 83%| 348.7 5.9 71%| 42 33%| 50948 79%
xMule | 115 0%| 1.1 0.0 0%| 0.0 0.0 0%| 0 0%| 22 0%
shareaza | 2119 1%| 18.1 0.3 1%| 0.5 0.0 0%| 60 47%| 2183 3%
aMule | 2073 1%| 14.3 0.2 1%| 0.9 0.0 0%| 9 7%| 851 1%
lPhant | 685 0%| 21.1 0.4 1%| 7.7 0.1 2%| 0 0%| 432 1%
ePlus | 9088 4%| 170.4 2.9 8%| 17.6 0.3 4%| 7 5%| 2869 4%
------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------------+------------+--------------
Total | 219016 | 2064.0 34.9 | 489.4 8.3 | 129 | 64728 |
This is MLDonkey current CVS (2005/11/09), working on Linux with well-configured QOS.
Now is the question, how can you install some kind of QOS on Windows
to prevent MLDonkey 2.6.7 saturating your upstream?
_________________
Link overview and precompiled cores here: http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/DownloadLinks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinuris
user
Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Results |
|
|
| spiralvoice wrote: | | Now is the question, how can you install some kind of QOS on Windows to prevent MLDonkey 2.6.7 saturating your upstream? |
Yes, how to?
What about Wondershaper for win32..upps we donīt have iptables nor netfiler...
| Quote: | > Hi,
>
> Is there a version of iptables on Win2k or Win32 that does not require
> cygwin?
>
> Thank you.
There's not version of iptables/Netfilter for Windows, using cygwin
or not. The OS it's so different I think it will never be one. |
When I finnish my actual job, I think I can return to linux, but meanwhile (years maybe), I'd like to use mldonkey and contribute to expand it.
Netlimiter does not work with mldonkey...and I donīt know if the QoS packed with XP is useful for this, and if it is, I donīt know how to configure it.
So if anyone thinks a solution, please tell me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
