twofo forum

At 21:45 today, I had a brainwave.

ITS's ban appears to be lifted on DC, at least temporarily. This has resulted in over 10TB being shared (woohoo!) but over 200 users (not so good). We all know twofo has seriously issues above the 250 users mark, so I'm thinking of introducing a policy similar to below:

• Below 180 users => 5GB minimum share
  180-210 users => 10GB minimum share
  210-230 users => 20GB minimum share
  230-250 users => 30GB minimum share
  250+ users => 50GB minimum share

What do you reckon?

Cocodude

That sounds fair, this way when ITS ban DC again (which to be fair they almost certainly will), lower sharing people will still be able to get on if they have to good luck to be able to connect.
Nice idea Cocodude

I guess I agree in general with the min share limits proposed.They seem fair(although if we get to the >250 users on the hub I 'm out of it as well ).
The point I 'd like to stress though is the one of diversity...
I mean even though sharesize is big there is rather small variety when it comes to music for example.
On the other hand it's a bit unlikely that someone sharing 5 GB will have lots of interesting stuff...
I was thinking about it as well while watching the conversation tonight but I realy can't make any specific suggestions on what the proper equilibrium point should be...

The main problem is that Cocodude's upload physically cannot handle the strain of the hub when there are >250 users online. It is unfortunate, but I think that something drastic probably needs to be done as chat becomes virtually unusable when there are that many people online

Problem is, when it increases to 50GB, numbers will drop => other people will rejoin => min share will increase...
Yeah, something does need to be done though

Edit: Hmmm people aren't forcibly removed actually if the share is increased after they have joined

So then all kicks (for share limits) will only be for ppl below 5GB or who share crap!

but I think the idea seems reasonable enough. Its simply a matter of implementing it as u'll need to write a script to handle that. (tho it shouldnt be too hard)

You're right, BigG - users will not be kicked if the share limit goes up while they're on the hub. This may encourage low sharers to use the hub during off-peak periods, which may be a good thing.

Cocodude

My problem with this is that I'm a laptop user and you have to remember that we have limited disk space. I'm currently sharing around 40Gb (out of 100Gb) and can probably stretch to 50Gb but then some laptops barely have a 60Gb HD... I'm a regular user and wouldn't want to be penalised for the fact that I don't have a large HD!

ps: cocodude can you change my username to Scooby as it is on the hub?! I typed it in wrong when filling out the form and can't change it myself!!!!

Scoobt wrote:I'm a regular user and wouldn't want to be penalised for the fact that I don't have a large HD!

You could always make sure you log on before the minimum share limits set in. That way, you would be immune to the changes. I know what you mean about it penalising many laptop users, but it's an unfortunate case that many people don't share very much because they don't want to, not because they are unable to.

ps: cocodude can you change my username to Scooby as it is on the hub?! I typed it in wrong when filling out the form and can't change it myself!!!!

I'll look into it tonight

Cocodude

I just tested this, and noticed you actually join the hub and receive the welcome message and nick list before getting kicked out for not sharing enough. Shouldn't the hub stop you joining earlier, which would save more bandwith?

Its the way the bots work.. it would be harder to implement the kick before the user is logged in. This is the way most big hubs do it as well.. Not sure how the bandwidth usage is and how it would change if u managed to change the implementation.

Anyone actually know the exact bandwidth usage figures??

It is possible to make the hub just refuse you connection if you aren't sharing enough but Cocodude hasn't set it up this way - he has it so that bot does the min-share, not the hub

It does ban the user for 5 minutes when kicked off, so I presume that opendchub will not let the user try to log in again while this ban is in action. This might save some bandwidth on retries.

Cocodude

No, no it won't allow the user to reconnect - the ban is a hub-level ban

"it's a bit unlikely that someone sharing 5 GB will have lots of interesting stuff..."

First of all, remember it's quality that counts, not quantity!! I know from searching on dc++ that I have some stuff that no one else has, and i've only got 13gb of music on my comp (all of which I share). The problem is, many of us have laptops with small capacities, and we can't share much more than 10GB. It's not that we're being selfish, and downloading without sharing, but that we simply don't have loads of music/shareable files on the computer. By only allowing us on the network at less busy times, it means our choice of music may also be limited, as more people on the network at that time will also, presumably, have a smaller number of shared files, and therefore less variety, and also there'll be fewer people on the network to choose from. Is there no other way round this?