Shareaza Behind Router Complaints Commonly Caused

[Tenor Singer]

Yesterday I decided to try Shareaza, so to make sure test results accurately reflected the software's capabilities, I precleaned the system downloading the latest virus definitions, then did the same with Ad-Aware, then with WebRoot SpySweeper, followed by a complete defrag. Clean, clean, clean, combed. During Shareaza's install it generated an instruction to configure my router/splitter to allow Shareaza full TCO access through Port 6346. But oddly the closing install screen offered to start Shareaza instantly despite the fact that no opportunity to reconfigure any router/splitter setup settings had occured yet! That's a stupid way to lead a parade. That closing screen should warn to only start the newly installed program if there is no hardware fire wall which must next be reconfigured with its setup program. So I let it run that way, as I expect most computer users would. This system is cable connected through an 8-port LinkSys router/splitter. I was surprised to discover that it actually worked at all! Further reading from other sites indicates that running Shareaza this way drastically reduces the number of P2P contacts with which the system can make exchanges. I gather that connections between parties, both of which are behind router firewalls, are impossible unless this "optional" (required to perform properly) port assignment is correctly changed through the user's router/splitter's setup program. The most robust P2P connect systems tend to be behind router hardware firewalls. So these common limp-along complaints claiming that Shareaza doesn't perform well for some people, yet has proven to perform very well for others, are almost certainly caused by these same complainer's personal user install errors. Sort of funny. KaZaa doesn't need an equivelant fire wall port assignment step. So previous experience with KaZaa doesn't warn Shareaza installers how important this final installation step for enabling full 2-way connection access. The Shareaza install routine is silly enough to invite people to try running it without allowing them a break to rerun their router's setup to assign TCP port access to Shareaza. So it should come as no surprise that these user complaints would be seen. Performance testing a new car with 4 flat tires could create a lot of complaints too, but that would display obvious user preconfiguration preparation failure had made proper testing impossible. Shareaza testing doesn't make this user preconfiguration prepartion failure obvious at all. I duplicated that probably common install without proper TCP 6346 port assignment for a 12 hour test. Lots of uploads occured from my system, but very few download request connections were made and completed. Improperly configured E-Mule by itself acts exactly the same way! So I strongly suggest to these complainers that they inflate their tires AND configure their ports before reporting performance complaints, which complaints are supposedly about the respective products rather than about their own preparation failures.
Just a friendly suggestion ~
Tenor Singer

[Kevo]

Whoa, very well said! But you should also open up port 6346 UDP as well, as shareaza works best with both UDP and TCP open for the port you have assigned. ;) The user can stop shareaza from opening up right away, but they have to unclick the box at the end. if you select "YES, but i will set up port forwarding for shareaza" on the second page of the quick start wizard, then a pop up box will tell you to open up port 6346 for TCP.

[Tenor Singer]

Thanks for correcting my omission Kevo. Sharing information like that makes these groups work well.

It seems sad to me when Peer to Peer program users become ego attached to their favorite program and only favorably describe that P2P solution. Those biases work against the best interests of the P2P community. The creator (claimed) or creators of Shareaza aren't ego attached to one specific file sharing network. That posture works to the advantage of all P2P users. While P2P solutions compete for users, their combined effect is like a team simply making file sharing more convenient than was possible before software writers began creating this class of similar solutions.
Tenor Singer

[Kevo]

Originally posted by Tenor Singer@23 December 2003 - 13:01
Thanks for correcting my omission Kevo. Sharing information like that makes these groups work well.

It seems sad to me when Peer to Peer program users become ego attached to their favorite program and only favorably describe that P2P solution. Those biases work against the best interests of the P2P community. The creator (claimed) or creators of Shareaza aren't ego attached to one specific file sharing network. That posture works to the advantage of all P2P users. While P2P solutions compete for users, their combined effect is like a team simply making file sharing more convenient than was possible before software writers began creating this class of similar solutions.
Tenor Singer
Yes, if P2P networks helping each other out, it's the only way networks will survive, especially free, open source nets. But when some P2P groups decide to shut down competitors (ala what sharman did to K++), they are just hastening their own demise. it's not a really smart idea to mess with peer-to-peer networks either, or your site gets taken down :P

[Jonne]

it's also important to forward both TCP & UDP. I ran raza for a few months, wondering why i didn't get to search through more then 4000 leaves, while the answer was in the FAQ all along: forward 6346 TCP & UDP...

so if you ever encounter a user complaining he doesn't get many search results, try asking him if he forwarded UDP too...

(that is only if this user has a router/firewall ...)

[Switeck]

Originally posted by Tenor Singer@22 December 2003 - 16:29
KaZaa doesn't need an equivelant fire wall port assignment step. So previous experience with KaZaa doesn't warn Shareaza installers how important this final installation step for enabling full 2-way connection access.
Actually, Kazaa/KL++ needs an equivalent and even MORE COMPLEX port assignment/router configuration step than Shareaza!

If you don't you could be making your entire computer network vulnerable to the dreaded Kazaa/KL++ DoS attack bug!

[junkyardking]

Well i have my router in half bridge mode and kerio firewall installed with all permissions given for shareaza and i get crap speeds.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by junkyardking@11 January 2004 - 17:26
Well i have my router in half bridge mode and kerio firewall installed with all permissions given for shareaza and i get crap speeds.
Yes I did all of the above as well but it still seems as though Shareaza just...































Sux Balls.
:P :P