running a primary connection to WinMX

[eclectica]

My dedicated p2p computer has a 233 mhz processor. Just recently I noticed that there is an option on WinMX 3.31 to "Allow primary connection with CPU under 266MHz". So I decided to try it out, because I've always been connected to WinMX as secondary.

In the decentralized network that WinMX series 3X has become, the user first connects to the peer cache (the only part still centralized), which then directs the user to which other primaries to connect to. The primary represents a node while the secondary connection is just a user connected to the primary. As a secondary user, the quality of searches seems to vary in WinMX depending on what primary user you are connected to.

I chose the minimum bandwidth setting of "7KB/s OUT 10.5 KB/s IN" for Allocated Bandwidth of running a primary connection. With those settings chosen, in the general WinMX bandwidth settings one can set them to be no lower than downloading 13752 and uploading 9168 bytes a second. In my case, I set the total WinMX uploading limit to be 11000 bytes a second. That allowed about 7000 bytes a second for running the primary node, and 4000 bytes a second for people uploading from me. My incoming bandwidth averages at about 9 kb/s, and my outgoing averages at about 12 kb/s.

The figures I have on top of the screen are P=5 S=0 spm=16130. That means I am hooked up to five other primary nodes, zero secondary people are connected to WinMX solely through me, and there are 16130 searches per minute being conducted. That is a high number of searches, so maybe it represents all of WinMX? Earlier in the day there were about as many primary users as secondary users connected to me.

Here's a site commonly referred to, that explains the WinMX Peer Network:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.buchanan/index.html?wpn.html

[eclectica]

I took a screen shot of my TCP/IP activity. The status on top at the time of the screen shot was P=5 S=1. Also, there were two people uploading from me and I was connected to one SlavaNap server, making a total of nine connections.

The WAN address is indicated as "remote address", and the LAN address is indicated as "local address".

The machine I was connected to at port 4567 was the SlavaNap server.

The next five listed are all the primaries I was connected to. Note that three of the five had chosen to use different ports (33000 and 16699) than the default 6699.

And finally, the last three on the list connected to my port 6699 were the two uploaders and one secondary connected to me.

http://www.tatom.org/images/WPN.jpg

[eclectica]

Now my stats are P=8 S=8. I see that I am connected to three users on their port 6699, and the rest are connected to my port 6699. So that means that five of the eight primaries I am connected to, were referred to my computer by way of the peer cache. You could generalize and say that the more people who are connected to you on your port 6699, the more important your function is in the WPN.

[Criminal_Sniper]

oh i havent tried winmx since early on having 56k it was too slow but ill try it again edonkey/shareaza suck so much im sick speed of edonkey and the lack on anything on G2
14 hours and only 150 mb on 256k
that is lame when i get film clips in the time i used to get mp3's

[eclectica]

Originally posted by Criminal_Sniper
and the lack on anything on G2
What is G2?

[Criminal_Sniper]

G2 = Sharaza
makes donkey not so terrible
if ya get some sources on both thst is

[napho]

I think this site http://www.peerweb.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=12 specializes in G2 links. There are so many sites like this now that I'm confused. Gnutella2 was started by the developer of Shareaza because Gnutella is so lame. Using that "sacred" name seemed to generate a controversy among Gnutella fanatics.

[eclectica]

"G2" sounds like a computer or a processor. I thought maybe it was a Mac computer.

[Criminal_Sniper]

hehe gunna get me a new os x mac one of them new ones g5
i know one is coming out it will be faster than intel cpu's or something ill have to check it out more
and os x is based on or built using unix so it has compatability there and linux i think
and if u run wine under linux..... i hope so in time it will be awesome the prob i had with macs was i wanted my old proggy's linux dosent have much of that problem and have some very powerfull tools

and btw i dont get a damn thing in winmx i dont like it the good few are klite++
yes it is fast noone can deny that but it needs to be anonymous and free from file corruption and needs to use partial downloads and max queue of 500 and rotations of like a few mb depending on connections or certain times if it going slow as not to hog if emule\ed2k\overnet did this they would rule and i would be there now
even on primary connection i got little searches

[eclectica]

I'm thinking that in the next computer I get, it won't be another version of Windows, but instead Linux. Most programs are written for Windows, so I would need a Windows emulator such as Wine HQ (http://www.winehq.com/). I was under the impression that a computer could run either Windows or Unix but it couldn't run a Mac because of the difference in the byte order. In other words, I can format my Windows hard drive and install Linux but I can't install Macintosh. Or maybe that is not the case with Mac OS X? Here is a site that compares Mac OS X, Windows XP, and Linux:
http://thetechnozone.com/smartbuyersguide/OS_Shootout-2003.htm

WinMX has good potential, but its userbase is filled with a high number of leeches. A lot of good people have left it as a result. Once the balance tips, it accelerates and causes even more people to leave. I stay connected to WinMX and people upload hundreds of songs from me, but if I search for a song I get few results and long queues. Where have all the files that I've uploaded gone? People log off once they get what they need, rather than staying online to share. If I were to upload knowing that I am adding files to the p2p community, then I wouldn't mind doing it, but with WinMX, I don't see the results like that, so it seems like a waste of bandwidth.

[Criminal_Sniper]

i think u would still have tp buy a mac computer but hey if its for a good enough reason i will buy anything :p eventually lol

and we need to start a thread about operating systems cause im interested in getting a new one and in one day writing one but i want to move away from say linux trying to look like windows to get more users
i hope to make a difference one day i just want a damn good stable full featured OS!!

and forget winmx they has to be something good coming out cause they are all drying up noone will stand around any more

[eclectica]

The bandwidth usages of WinMX are greedy when running the primary connection. At first the program would do what it is supposed to, by having my maximum upload at 11000 KB/s, as I set it in my preferences. This allowed uploaders 4 KB/s of bandwidth because I set in my preferences to run the primary network only using 7 KB/s of uploading.

After running the primary network connection for a couple of days, I noticed that web pages were loading slowly. I checked and found my upload maxed out at about 13 KB/s. In addition, the poor person uploading from me got squeezed down to only 1 KB/s. This means the primary network was using about 12 KB/s, even though I set it in my preferences to use no more than 7 KB/s. It does not follow the bandwidth restrictions well. I disconnected from the primary network and that ended the strangulation of my bandwidth.

[eclectica]

After disconnecting from the network while running WinMX on a primary connection, the program often crashes.