bugmenot

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    25

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bugmenot

  1. Posted

    Hi there,

    I have a question: When I have something like

    
D:/Stuff/Folder1/

D:/Stuff/Folder2/

D:/Stuff/Folder3/

...

    I just want to share Folder1 and Folder2, but I want to preserve the Folderstructure, so the share would still be /Stuff/Folder1 and /Stuff/Folder2. Is this possible? I tried to share Folder1 with the Name Stuff/Folder1 and Stuff\Folder1 but it converts the slashe to underscores and not to folder structure...

    So is it possible without moving files around?

  2. Posted

    I'm trying to connect to a hub from my school. My school doesn't have many open ports, but it does have a few, such as 5190 for AIM and some ports for World of Warcraft. Shouldn't this mean I should be able to successfully connect to any hub I want?

    Right now I'm trying to connect with "Firewall (passive, worst case)" checked with the port 5190 in the DHT/UDP box with no luck. I've tried a few other things but I was mainly just screwing around with the settings. Didn't really know what I was doing.

    Any ideas?

  3. Posted

    Run an anti-malware program immediately. You must have downloaded it.

    I've analized the file with comodo antivirus, emsisoft antimalware and bitdefender free and it's clean, but I've never download apexdc, but the date this file was created was the same as the one when I download a keygen which didn't open anything when clicked on it, that's why I think it's a virus...

    So...the file doen's have anything to do with apexdc?

    virustotal says....

    http://www.virustotal.com/es/analisis/7fc27fb436d9811832a7fe55ed1b6eadb14f0531aa10ee9a29ce481bb1c5c443-1280331587

    with the info of virus total, nod32 says that it's a virus, so I believe it's not really and apexdc file...

  4. Posted

    Hi:

    I've a problem with apexdc++, which i've never download or install...when the antivirus shows up the hwq.exe was the first time I see anything about apexdc++...so..is hwq.exe a file from this program?it was in C:\Users\xxxx\AppData\Temp

    thanks!!!

  6. Posted

    It doesn't work.

    If I put "9000" in both the Upload and Download boxes, my download slows to exactly 4.00 MiB/s.

    If I put "9000" for Download and "9999999999" in Upload (which gets rounded to "2147483647" in Upload), the download stays at exactly 4.00 MiB/s.

    If I put "99999999999999" in both the Upload and the Download boxes (both of which get rounded to "2147483641"), the download actually stops completely.

    When I disable limits, the download jumps back up to 13.xx MiB/s.

    I'm running Windows 7 64-Bit, and I'm not uploading anything at all. And I'm only downloading one file, as a test.

  7. Posted

    Don't put decimal numbers there. The numbers are in KiB so if you want to throttle download to 9 MiB/s put 9000 there (or a similar number).

    I'm sorry. That was a comma, not a period, and I included it here only I am American.

    When I insert "9000" in the box, the download speed suddenly drops to about 3.5 MB/s.

    I still don't understand.

  8. Posted

    Advanced -> Limits

    I found that, but I couldn't find any combination of numbers that work.

    I start a download. It's downloading at 10meg, which is great, but it's saturated my line, and I can't do anything else.

    When I put "9,216" in the "Upload Speed" and "Download Speed" boxes, the download slows down to like three and a half meg. If it's something as simple as a unit conversion, I beg someone to enlighten me.

    Additionally, does that even do what I want? If I individually limited upload and download to 9 meg, wouldn't the sum of the two still saturate the line? ((This question might betray my lack of knowledge about how networking works)).

  10. Posted

    no matter how much i do share i appear in the list with zero share at all the h also im using a wifi connection is there anything that i should change in the settings,obviously something is wrong,im a beginner....any suggestions?thanks

  12. Posted

    Actually last time i came to this forum (when i typed the text above) i actually thought there was some hope left for this community :) i realized however that my lentghy posts here means nothing.

    This project and community is dead and its almost singlehandedly becouse of the devs here. Lets face it. ApexDC++ is nothing more than a StrongDC clone. They cant even add feautures themselves but must wait for upcoming strong version. When asked what difference there really is, other than skin, you get no response (or a ridiculus answer stating new feautures that makes you think its little childs doing this mod). This is no mod peoples, It's like StrongDC with smiley packs.... And StrongDC by itself has been a dead project since a very long time ago, when the developer lost all grip of what spirit lies in filesharing, and the community as a whole. Given that he also seems to run the place around here only makes it worse.

    This is a shame indeed but until someone steps up and changes things around with some other mod, that maybe get a community going, its not going to change.

    To Apex devs: you really digged your graves on this one... i wish you should look around the forums (espacially future requests section) and see what this place actually became. And learn from it. I had MUCH higher hopes for this mod when it emerged so long ago.

    Well thats it for me :D funny coming back here after all this time tho :)

    oh and...

    You gotta be honest, it is an extremely long post, (and getting longer), and BM is probably busier than you or I.

    I seriously doubt that my friend :) id be extremely surprised if he wasnt a very lonely person...

  13. Posted

    same problem / fix

    on the connection test tcp was the only one not connecting

    so i only fowareded the tcp port and left the udp unchanged ,

    after than i couldent search hubs either went back fowared the udp port worked fine after that

  14. Posted

    Hello,

    I'm running ApexDC++ 1.1.0 on wine (1.1.5) on Fedora 8. It works flawlessly except with scrolling which I'm not sure is a problem because of running it in wine or if it's a "feature." When the users are chatting, the scrollbar automatically scrolls UP a few lines, so either I have to clear the window after every few lines or else scroll down each time someone types something.

    Is this a known issue?

  16. Posted

    You are not 'suffering' from this feature, you have simply missed the point of the DC network. DC was not, as you put it, there to facilitate user's maxing there line's. DC is a community, it is not like torrent where it is there simply to allow users to download hundred's of files. You can chat, queue up hundred's of files, and most importantly SHARE.

    Hence the reason DC has a share limit for users, it encourages users to share, not like torrent, or limeware etc where everyone leech's and does not give back (sure, torrent 'reward's' sharing, but it does not have hard coding in it to avoid leeching). DC give's the hub owner's the choice (and 99% of them oblige) to inform users they must share x amount to join the hub.

    I see your point - but i think its in the eye of the beholder.

    I mean, some peoples only use DC for the community... and some use it only for downloading (this is logicly the largest group). And some combine them both. I, myself, started out as the casual downloader getting pissed of at all the bot messages thrown at me (I think we all have been there). I then became a combiner until finally a "community only". However, i grew older and nowadays i dont have the time with such things and therefore i use DC for casual downloading again.

    My point: As it is (also) a place for casual downloading among the other things, it should (also) be optimized as such.

    Your thought is correct however; The network was never designed for speed. But its users have always wanted it.

    This is proven by the fact that (as you know, highly illegal at the time) multisource clients was made.

    This transition, i believe, is the reason to why the DC network can produce the highest download rates among the p2p networks.

    It started single source and went out with really strong force that no upload limit what so ever was to be used (to optimize the single peer downloading a little)

    This way of thinking is obsolete now with multisource downloading, but is still (a bit oddly) enforced by many in the network. This makes it so that each source is (or should be) limit free (this is a rule not found in any other multisource p2p network) thus producing very high speeds most of the times.

    Technically, it's more than enough

    I disagree. Your way is a very genral way of putting it. It can never be put that way when all users want different things.

    It may be enough to some, and not to some others. Difference lies in the line speed of the user and what he is after on the network. Be it just downloading or the community.

    DC++ up until very recently, allowed 1 slot per file, period.

    Indeed it did. But the change to multisource by official client was forced becouse of the overly unfair advantage multisource clients had in the network. This is proof that the network can change for the better with our (your) changes in the clients.

    Becouse of this, new features should be encouraged.

    However, this does not mean Apex cannot make good use of your connection. The DC network as I previously said it geared to allow users to queue up multiple files, so if you have 15 files running with 10 slots, this is 150 slots in total. Surely you can easily max out your connection on that?

    I'm assuming, if you can't you are not downloading popular files as you previously stated.

    You are right. That would be much much more than enough. Actually, to not damage the network i limit the total download numbers to alot less (I will still reach 100mbit on normal ocasions, or ~10MB/s if you will call it that)

    The problem lies with downloading just 1 file. Maybe becouse its a very large file or becouse you just want this particular thing and nothing else for the moment.

    Just for clarification - I do not nececearaly wish you guys to change the behavoiur of downloading one file at the time. Becouse actually both ways are faulty; if putting much stuff in queue it will result (for most of the users including the very fast ones) in your client taking way to much slots than it needs too, to max your line out. And of course the contrast - when downloading only one file, there is no insurrance that the 10 segments will be sufficient.

    The obvious theoreticly solution to this would be to not at all set a limit per file, but instead set a total limit that is dynamic (not user changable, and somehow determines how many segements are needed, totally, at that very moment. Be it with one file or 50 simultaneous downloading files)

    Out code is already optimised to do this, not quite in the way you say, but it does it without swamping the network like RevC.

    It already adjusts segment size in accordance with the uploader's speed. It also disconnects slow users as your slot's fill up with fast users. If you are downloading popular file's this should work even better. You should in essence end up with 10 sources uploading to you in excess of 100Kb/s each! If you use hub's designed for your connection, even faster.

    Well theese are pretty advanced functions and it shows that the client obviously does some measuring about the speeds.

    So why not improving the downloading slots mechanism but having it set segements automaticly? Maybe by using similar techniques to how it automaticly figures out which user to assign bigger segment sizes too?

    We have previously explored using 15 slots on DC and for good reason removed this feature, so to incoorporate such a feature as this would mean we are going backwards.

    I dont know if you misunderstood me. I didnt mean that you guys change the limit itself dynamicly with each release. I meant that the client will do that automaticlly

    I have no doubt you see the advantage of this: newbs that cant set their limits correctly which will harm the network in the end would be gone. And peoples with high speed lines that complains that a single file download with 10 segments isnt going to suffice will be happy. (in turn, all clients on the entire network would gain more free slots becouse the peoples that dont need 10 segments, wont - whilst the higher speed users will take more slots than 10 to complete the file but will release them again much faster becouse of the file completing much faster)

    My Pleasure, was nice to have a detailed thread to answer for once.

    Well, if you do find the time to answer me once more, i hope you dont find it too long to read this time lol.

    What can I say...im at work so i have an excuse for typing "in depth"... this is really making the time fly! :(

    Anyway thanks for listening guys im glad you can take a conversation about this. I dont expect it but why not try for changes.

    back to work... *sigh*

  17. Posted

    ...to have you (devs) enable so the maximum dowload slots per file can be raised to above 10?

    Please excuse if you have heard this request many times before. I am not here to complain nor nag about it. I was rather thinking about having a rational discussion about it. I hope you will have patience and at least listen and consider.

    First of all, I myself agree that it is not good to set this to higher number becouse of the way the network works. However I think that it must be a way to comprimise this....some middle road... some solution to this...

    I for example am suffering (in lack of better word) from this. I have a 100/100mbit line and I am only using DC++ (including its mods) for the speeds sake. Nowhere else can i max out my line so easily (when searching for popular content).

    The 10 max setting is obviously ruining this, as 10 segments is way to little to even think about maxing such a connection, thus reducing my effectivity (in turn making me take slots for unecseceary long times).

    The "disconnect slow downloads" helps to a degree but it is in no way optimal.

    I realize that not much % on DC network have this kind of connection, but some (and quite many too) have.

    I was thinking that how about you guys do something along the lines of what revconnect did... (but more controlled and better)

    What i mean with that is that revconnect measures the speed you are downloading at (per file) and then (per file) shrinks and enlarges piece sizes dynamicly acording to this in a very extreme manner. In theory, this is a good idea, making it so that the slow transfers have less pieces and hence less downloading sources at same time, whilst the fast transfers have more, and the extremely fast ones has much more (but striving to have just enough).

    This is done by having an unlimited number of max segments, but piece sizes ranging from extremely small (16kb i think, this really solves the problem where slow sources are stuck at the end of the file) and up to several hundred MBs per piece.

    this works in revconnect and it shows however its still to wasty with the slots... especially since it opens up way to many before deciding whos fast and whos not.

    I was thinking you guys maybe could set a limit at first to 10 or something and then increase/decrease slowly dynamicly acourding to how the transfer turns out. This will effectively read the quality of the sources the user is downloading from as well as the users connection without asking him for it.

    Anyway thats just a thought. Not a request. (hence this part of the forum) I hope we can have a discussion.

    Also, I shall register myself normally next time i read here. I am in extreme hurry right now. Sorry if it offends anyone that i logged in like this.

    thanks for your time reading this whole thing :(

  19. Posted

    Что за ошибка,кто подскажет,заранее спс!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)

    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)

    Major: 5

    Minor: 1

    Build: 2600

    SP: 2

    Type: 1

    Time: 2007-08-13 22:13:46

    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI

    ntdll!0x7C901010: RtlEnterCriticalSection

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\merklecheckoutputstream.h(119): MerkleCheckOutputStream<MerkleTree<TigerHash=0x03D3A4A8,1024>=0x00000499,1>::write

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\chunkoutputstream.h(79): ChunkOutputStream<1>::write

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\filteredfile.h(133): FilteredOutputStream<UnZFilter=0x03D19FF0,1>::write

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\downloadmanager.cpp(533): DownloadManager::on

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\userconnection.cpp(180): UserConnection::on

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\speaker.h(64): Speaker<BufferedSocketListener>::fire<BufferedSocketListener::X<3>=0x0259FF00,unsigned char *=0x0259FF08,int>

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\bufferedsocket.cpp(263): BufferedSocket::threadRead

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\bufferedsocket.cpp(515): BufferedSocket::checkSocket

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\bufferedsocket.cpp(531): BufferedSocket::run

    d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\thread.h(161): Thread::starter

    f:\sp\vctools\crt_bld\self_x86\crt\src\threadex.c(348): _callthreadstartex

    f:\sp\vctools\crt_bld\self_x86\crt\src\threadex.c(326): _threadstartex

  20. Posted

    Pidgin is a multi-protocol instant messenger that can handle file transfers and IRC, if a plugin is developed that enables DC++ shares it would negtate the use of another file sharing piece of software and get a linux client.

  21. Posted

    Hey just wondering when a pidgin plugin (www.pidgin.im) will be released. The extra software download is good, but a plugin for this communicator would be even better!!!! No more need to develop a linux client. Whatdday say?