Re: [Mldonkey-users] Investigation: No download for some, full downloads for the other

[Roland Arendes]

hi Alois,

am Montag, 23. Dezember 2002 um 14:10 schriebst du:

A>  >1) What do you think of this approach ?
A>  >2) Do you know the approaches used in eMule, eDonkey or Overnet ?
A>  >Note that we could implement three sets of sets of sources, ie one for
A>  >high priority files, one for normal files, and one for low priority files.
A> it would be also good to seperate overnet and edonkey sources, maybe
A> even Emule, MLDonkey and official Edonkey sources. So that you could
A> have an own connection behaviour for each of the client types. (And you
A> could say, that you don't want to connect to too many Emules, because
A> they are not likely to give you too much uploads) And, of course there
A> should be an extra store for (Emule) sources, that you have already
A> uploaded to and that are more likely to upload to you.
A> And yes, I really like the idea of new source management.

Me too, it's a very advanced approach and sounds good. Any volunteers
to extract the emule source propagation out of the source? :-)

Btw: I doubt it will make sense to not connect to emules. We all have
the same statistics for them: 5% mldonkey, 94% emule, 1% edonkey(bot).

As I already said, mldonkeys are very bad at uploading (divide your
total uploads / uptime and you'll see the real upload rate, which is
way NOT max_hard_upload_rate), so .. emules are nearly the only sources
we'll have (except overnet).

-roland