Some Conclusions After Some Experiments...

[jackc]

OK, after getting completely pissed off regarding the speed of Raza as compared with the FT network (for which I use K-Lite 2.6 PR1), I went on and made some expereiments to see if I have to kick Raza out of my PC. The reason was that although K-Lite could manage speeds above 15-20 KB/s (sometimes 30+), Raza was always below 10 KB/s (usually around 4-5 KB/s).

After my (unscientific may I say) extensive speed tests, my conclusions are:

1. On the G2 network, Raza got acceptable speeds (up to 10-15 KB/s). Problem is that VERY FEW files exist on G2, so at the mom this is unimportant. :( If G2 becomes more popular, then this might be a stronger point.
2. Same with G1, yet this is a dying network, so no future here...
3. In edonkey2000, the speed is just PLAIN S**T!!! Speeds below 2 KB/s are not uncommon at all, here. I think this is scandalous! :angry: Although ed2k has definitely the greatest variety of files, you simply have to wait for week(s) to get your file. And let me point here that installing emule didn't change things: My d/ls continued to run at a snail speed (despite having my machine on 24/7, so I don't buy the u/l-d/l ratio crap).
4. With torrents, things are quite good. I got speeds around 15-20 KB/s, although the volatility is very high. I used shadow's client in the past, and I do not think that there is a significant difference between the two clients (I remind you that this is NOT a scientific research, so this might be a wrong conclusion, but I think it is not). Problem with BT files is that you get only new releases, which means that if for example I want to watch "Deerhunter", then forget it... :frusty:

OK, so here's my conclusion: It isn't Shereaza that sucks, it is the ed2k network which provides 90% of its files. So if you want to get a large file (which is NOT an app, because here integrity matters, and Raza gets a 10/10 on this count), then I would try the following order: 1. FT, 2. BT (via Raza if you don't have a separate client, and I think you don't need one), 3. Raza (and cross your fingers that there will be enough G2 uploaders so that you want need to get it via the crappy ed2k)...

OK, that's it for today! I am tired... :P

[uNz[i]]

Excellent points. I pretty much agree with you.

It's a shame that raza depends so heavily on the eD2K network.
Just a quick browse around this section of the forum will tell you how low peoples opinions of Shareaza have sunk because of this single factor.

Theres nothing wrong with the client itself, which is essentially why I've been a defender of it since this world opened.

My advice to folks who want to access the eD2K network:
Forget about using Shareaza to do it. Get Overnet Lite instead.

( REALITY is gonna love this :rolleyes: )

[jackc]

Excellent points. I pretty much agree with you.


Thx! :rolleyes:


My advice to folks who want to access the eD2K network: Forget about using Shareaza to do it. Get Overnet Lite instead.

But why use overnet lite? I have not tried it (nor have I tried overnet), but since it is the ed2k network that sucks what can a different client do better than Raza (or emule)? Except if overnet lite has tricks similar to K-Lite (Supreme Being Participation Level) so the sh**ty credit system of ed2k gets bypassed and you can d/l with ease. If this happens (just an assumption of mine, as I said I know nothing about overnet/overnet lite) then it would be definitely worth installing! B)

[supersonic]

overnet and overnet lite, emule, emonkey and all this crap is not different then Raza, but I agree with you guys that the program is pretty good, with no spyware.
Ed2k network sux because as jackc says that it is the crappy credit sys which effects the download speed. BTW: I have a trick for Raza and emonkey users.
Always make servers starting with 207.44.XX.XX have higher periority. These servers are really fast,most the other servers suck. I got higher periority of downloading because I'm always connecting to the above servers and uploading to ppl in these srvers only, which now makes me download many things from this netw0rk. Anyways it might only work for me and not others. 'nyways give it a try.
Only upload to one server or to the servers I mentioned above, because then you would have a higher credit in the monkey credit system. If you upload to a different server each time, it will be harder to get to a higher level in the credit system, if that makes any sense.

[uNz[i]]

Thanks for the server tip, supersonic. I'll try that.

The only reason I recommend Overnet Lite is simply because it gets on with the job of downloading as soon as it finds sources.
Every other client I've used to access eD2K seems to find heaps of sources... and then just sticks you in an endless queue .

Look in the eDonkey/eMule section of the forum for a download link to Overnet Lite if you want to try it for yourself.

[Jonne]

Shareaza works a lot better if you just don't connect to edonkey, try it...

[jackc]

Always make servers starting with 207.44.XX.XX have higher periority. These servers are really fast,most the other servers suck.

Interesting suggestion supersonic... I'll give it a try! ;)

I am glad that my findings are correct. (As I had said, the lack any technical foundation, and they were just observation-based). So, let's hope that G2 gets more popular, as this seems the best solution for better Raza speeds... B)

[RealitY]

Originally posted by uNz[i
,21 January 2004 - 14:02] My advice to folks who want to access the eD2K network:
Forget about using Shareaza to do it. Get Overnet Lite instead.

( REALITY is gonna love this :rolleyes: )
Well there it is, and that goes for having a seperate BT client as well such as Shadow.
The only thing Shareaza should be used for is G2 for now...

[junkyardking]

Overnet was created by metamachine to overcome some problems with there edonkey client, which it seems to have suceeded, but from what i read edonkey is still growing..

Overnet lite is great, there are diffrences between overnet and other clients like Edonkey and emule.

It's serverless and is similar to kazaa decentralised system.

Also there's a system called the horde which is similar to bittorent which partners you with other people downloading the same file, it this i think gives overnet better speeds.


When it comes to Shareaza, I think the lack of sources on G2 is part of the problem
but i also belive there maybe somthing not quite with the protacols involved, which might explain fast speeds at the start then sudden slowness, also problems with finishing large files...

From what i heard Shareaza was a better client when it was by itself before it started supporting g1 or ed2k...

[Switeck]

Originally posted by junkyardking+2 February 2004 - 19:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking &#064; 2 February 2004 - 19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>From what i heard Shareaza was a better client when it was by itself before it started supporting g1 or ed2k...[/b]Shareaza has always supported G1 (Gnutella 1.)<!--QuoteBegin-jackc@21 January 2004 - 13:49
After my (unscientific may I say) extensive speed tests, my conclusions are:

1. On the G2 network, Raza got acceptable speeds (up to 10-15 KB/s). Problem is that VERY FEW files exist on G2, so at the mom this is unimportant. :( If G2 becomes more popular, then this might be a stronger point.
2. Same with G1, yet this is a dying network, so no future here...[/quote]G1 (Gnutella 1) is in fact growing, although at a slower rate than more popular networks. It has a reputation of slowness and &#39;as a last resort&#39; network when your connection is so firewalled that no other network/s will work.

BearShare, Limewire, and Shareaza comprise a large portion of the Gnutella 1 network -- practically all of which are decent G1 clients when configured correctly, although there&#39;s many (beta?) versions of each which are disasters.

Currently, the G1 measured network size is about 200,000 users at any moment -- however due to the &#39;spiderweb&#39; nature of the network, the ACTUAL size is larger than this by some unknown amount.

Download and upload speeds vary immensely due to most people being on dial-up or having LOTS of uploads going at once, thinking their broadband connection can handle it. At the other end of the spectrum are firewalled T-1 lines which have very little upload traffic, so if you find and download from one of them you might get downloads speeds of 50-170 KB/sec just from 1 alone. Understanding the network and special strategies to find files on it is nearly paramount to getting good download (and upload&#33;) speeds.

Unfortunately, none of the Gnutella 1 programs are excellent (yet&#33;) at being able to auto-find more sources for slow downloads... even though more sources OFTEN EXIST. This means to get the most out of them requires quite a bit of micro-managing them. :(

However, because the network is still EVOLVING (Gnutella v0.6 is being finalized with improvement plans for Gnutella v0.8 and v1.0 being hashed out), things should get better. But during beta roll-outs, things can temporarily get very bad if the &#39;latest-and-greatest&#39; changes accidentally sabotage the network. Almost all large p2p file-sharing networks are inherently fragile, and Gnutella seems even moreso. :(

[jackc]

G1 (Gnutella 1) is in fact growing, although at a slower rate than more popular networks. It has a reputation of slowness and &#39;as a last resort&#39; network when your connection is so firewalled that no other network/s will work.

So G2 is NOT the successor of G1? By simple logic (2 comes after 1 ;) ), I thought that the arrival of G2 meant the gradual phase out of G1. Are they being developed in parallel, instead?


Shareaza works a lot better if you just don&#39;t connect to edonkey, try it...

Maybe it does, but given the fact that in my searches the vast amount of results comes from ed2k, disconnecting from it will kill one of Raza&#39;s competitive edges: Its great file availability... :( It seems like a Catch-22 situation here: Connect to ed2k, you get results but slow d/ls-disconnect, and you get no results and fast d/ls...

[Switeck]

Originally posted by jackc@4 February 2004 - 05:17

G1 (Gnutella 1) is in fact growing, although at a slower rate than more popular networks. It has a reputation of slowness and &#39;as a last resort&#39; network when your connection is so firewalled that no other network/s will work.So G2 is NOT the successor of G1? By simple logic (2 comes after 1 ;) ), I thought that the arrival of G2 meant the gradual phase out of G1. Are they being developed in parallel, instead?Yes, G2 is NOT the successor of G1&#33;

The "Gnutella 2" protocol was developed only by the programmer of Shareaza (A.K.A. Mike), who felt dissatisfied with the rate of change in the Gnutella developers forum ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/ ) and with all the &#39;legacy&#39; protocol extensions that had to be maintained/supported to be considered a &#39;true&#39; Gnutella client.

He decided to write a NEW file-sharing protocol from the ground up, trying not to make all the &#39;mistakes&#39; (in quotes because many of these questionable things were done for good reasons) that Gnutella had, and called it Gnutella 2 without any consideration towards other Gnutella developers. It was strongly felt by them that he was seeking to hijack the name and use it for his own fame/gain/etc. Inside the Gnutella developers forum, the Gnutella 2 protocol is often reffered to as "Mike&#39;s Protocol".

Having said all that, Shareaza&#39;s Gnutella 2 protocol does have minor advantages over the latest Gnutella v0.6 protocol (as implimented in BearShare and Limewire.) It CAN allow users to search the entire Gnutella 2 network so long as that network remains small (<100,000 users) and the file/s searched for are rare -- for this to be sustained beyond those limitations requires ever-increasing amounts of bandwidth at the supernode/ultrapeer level.

Not only do Gnutella 1 and 2 continue to be developed in parallel, Mike (the maker of Shareaza) has continued to support Gnutella 1&#39;s protocol in Shareaza... so well in fact that his program has as good or better connectivity into the Gnutella 1 network as BearShare OR Limewire. I ought to know, on BearShare many of my downloads COME from Shareaza users&#33;

The reason why Shareaza (when connected to just the Gnutella 2 network) doesn&#39;t vastly outperform things like Kazaa Lite is because even though the network protocol is FAR more efficient (meaning less overheads are wasted to get downloads completed) there are simply fewer users (to download from.) Even Gnutella 1&#39;s protocol is considerably more efficient than Kazaa&#39;s -- and it is still improving. (Alt Locs, a quick way to gather additional sources for downloads have been reduced from about 1 KB in size to less than 30 bytes per ip source past the first&#33;) Much of the legacy stuff in Gnutella has been dropped with Gnutella v0.6 -- which not only makes it faster, but encourages (the painful way&#33;) users to upgrade to a version made in the last year.

However, there are still some very thorny and painful issues in Gnutella 1 (and 2 as a couple clients have come to TRY to support it) with automatic source searches and download retry rates. A client that retries downloads very quickly has a better-than-average chance of starting a download than others, but does so at the BANDWIDTH expense of everyone. The same is true with a client which automatically seeks new sources for downloads at a rapid rate. At it&#39;s worst, it&#39;s cheating -- needlessly using lots of people&#39;s connection&#39;s bandwidth and slowing everyone&#39;s downloads and uploads down. But where do you draw the line? A client that retries ALL its searches and ALL its downloads (for more sources) once every 10 seconds quickly overloads the network backbone it&#39;s connected to. Believe it or not, even a single search for ".MP3" files might consume 100+ MEGABYTES of bandwidth across the network&#33; Even a very rare search might consume 1 MB or more of bandwidth if added up across every connection that had to receive the search and forward it on. (If a search takes 1 KB to send to 1 connection and it&#39;s sent to 1,000 connections, that&#39;s 1,000 KB or roughly 1 MB. But searches are now easily reaching >1,000 UltraPeers with 10-200 leaves each&#33;)

Gnutella Leaves are equal to nodes on Kazaa and UltraPeers are equal to Supernodes. Peers was all that existed in earlier Gnutella versions and was mainly why Gnutella ORIGINALLY sucked. Now, UltraPeers have no more message/network traffic (measured in bandwidth used) across them than Peers originally did but they support 10-200 TIMES as many connections&#33;

BearShare&#39;s detailed network statistics for its updated v0.6 versions only ( http://www.bearshare.com/stats/ ) shows that the average upload speed for leaves which make up the majority of the network is hovering around 2 KB/sec. It&#39;s been pointed out that about 80% of the network is made up of 56k modems, so only 2 KB/sec uploads makes sense... but is a painful fact. Even the UltraPeers which HAVE to be much faster than Leaves to BE UltraPeers are only uploading at 4-6 KB/sec on average&#33; This doesn&#39;t mean VERY FAST downloads can&#39;t come from Leaves or UltraPeers, just that most don&#39;t -- and MANY don&#39;t share anything at all or seldom have an active upload even though they ARE sharing.

Because of this, ANYTHING that eats bandwidth without giving faster download speeds to almost everyone really isn&#39;t something file-sharing networks can support.

Kazaa is little different in that regard, it just may seem so due to local conditions. Auto-continuing searches in KL++ and jumping supernodes just allows us to see more of the network, so even if the average download rate PER node is low it doesn&#39;t matter so long as FEW are taking advantage of searching more of the network.

A really horrible surprise learned just recently by all the Gnutella developers (BearShare&#39;s stats-gathering caused this) is how MUCH of the network is FIREWALLED&#33; Roughly 2/3s of BearShare is, and probably equal or higher amounts of Gnutella 1 and 2 is. But from what I can tell about Kazaa/KL++&#39;s (FastTrack) protocol, it&#39;s even WORSE on Kazaa/KL++&#33; On Gnutella 1 or 2, you can use a router and not be firewalled just by port-forwarding whatever ip port Gnutella 1 or 2 users. But on Kazaa/KL++, you have to port forward Kazaa/KL++&#39;s ip port (on both TCP AND UDP&#33;) AND run KaNAT -- and even still there are brief moments where the connection will appear firewalled and/or giving out your local LAN ip&#33; A side-effect of this is if you are firewalled on Kazaa/KL++, then your download options are FAR WORSE than if you&#39;re not. Someone who&#39;s not firewalled may have 100+ KB/sec download speeds, but someone who is firewalled may be lucky to find anything at all to download.

This shows Gnutella 1&#39;s approximate size (actually a low estimate):
http://www.limewire.com/english/content/netsize.shtml

BitTorrent *IS* different because usually multiple files aren&#39;t competing for upload-time. People usually run only 1 or 2 torrents at a time and often allow them to continue uploading (or just forgot they were uploading) after the download finishes. There is no search ability in the BitTorrent program (or BT clones), so the TIME it takes just to find more to download using BT is considerably greater than on Kazaa/Gnutella 1 or 2/Emule/etc. Also, BitTorrent has forced sharing by EVERYONE -- often without upload limits, unless explicitly specified. The BitTorrent clone programs on the other hand DO have upload limits which can be made the default settings, so that&#39;s the speed they start at with each NEW torrent.

[jackc]

That was a useful piece of info, Switeck&#33; Thx... B)