Jump to content
To block spammers, this forum has suspended new user registration ×
Comet Forums
To block spammers, this forum has suspended new user registration

BITCOMET LOG IN

unkown

By unkown
in BitComet General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

dimchopicha2003 Newbie

dimchopicha2003

Posted
Posted

in lang_en_us.xml:

<MSG_LOGINNED>"Loginned."</MSG_LOGINNED>

<MSG_RELOGIN>User has loginned. Try again later.</MSG_RELOGIN>

<MENU_LOGINOUT>Passport Loginout</MENU_LOGINOUT>

<PassportLoginned>Loginned.</PassportLoginned>

<PassportLoginout>Not loginned in.</PassportLoginout> -> change here to "not logged in"

I think this is for a future ability BC to connect to a server maybe!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jerryfll Newbie

jerryfll

Posted
Posted

I'm glad to see it isn't just me. I just uninstalled the sucker and went back to 0.70. I couldn't connect to anything and none of my settings had changed. Since I couldn't figure out a way to get "loginned in", I was stuck with a non-functional program. The old version is working just fine. I'm staying away from the new version until the bugs get ironed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ouskava benlagraine Newbie

ouskava benlagraine

Posted
Posted

I'm glad to see it isn't just me. I just uninstalled the sucker and went back to 0.70. I couldn't connect to anything and none of my settings had changed. Since I couldn't figure out a way to get "loginned in", I was stuck with a non-functional program. The old version is working just fine. I'm staying away from the new version until the bugs get ironed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XSTREM Newbie

XSTREM

Posted
Posted

Hm, I'll talk to Rnysmile & aimee about this. Sorry about not thoroughly checking the whole coding out before releasing.

Yes, we're planning to implement it almost like BitComet Lite.

Haha and yes that should be "Not Logged In"

And can I ask why you're doing that? That's dumb, if you ask me. I don't see the point. :blink:

And where is the SuperSeeding? BitComet might be the only client without that important option..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XSTREM Newbie

XSTREM

Posted
Posted

Of course it needs Super Seed. It's such an important and wonderfull option. I can't understand why you say that it dosen't need it (and you call yourself a member of the tech-staff? :huh: ). This is one of the reasons why BitComet is starting to be a bad client compared to others.

Thankfully you're not the one who takes that decision.

All the other clients have the SuperSeed feature. (µTorrent, Azureus, Bittornado and so on).

To other users, that dosen't know what we're talking about, read this:

http://www.bittornado.com/docs/superseed.txt

You still say that BitComet dosen't need it? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark_Shroud Newbie

Dark_Shroud

Posted
Posted

All the other clients have the SuperSeed feature. (µTorrent, Azureus, Bittornado and so on).

To other users, that dosen't know what we're talking about, read this:

http://www.bittornado.com/docs/superseed.txt

You still say that BitComet dosen't need it? :huh:

Azureus & µTorrent's super seed do not work right. They are always being changed and worked on by the developers because they're always having problems. µTorrent's own mods and diehard fans would tell you its broken and use BitTornado. µTorrent 1.6 is the first version to have a semblance of a working super/ initial seed option.

Azureus, there stuff is always a mess, I'm not sure what they've done to it now. BitTornado 3.15 has a good version of super-seed but it has little bug in it that can cause problems. TheSHADOW has already stated that he's fixed it. He just hasn't released a new beta or full version yet.

Super/Initial seed is not a standard BitTorrent function. Very few people know how to use it properly. It's not needed.

As stated by dimchopicha2003, there are other things that need to be fixed first before this is even considered. Furthermore I'd rather have Azureus DHT & µTorrent PEX added before Initial-seed. You know, types functions that will actually help my downloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kluelos Newbie

kluelos

Posted
Posted

So-called super-seeding, or inital seeding as µtorrent is calling it now, just isn't a good thing. There's also a tremendous amount of disinformation floating around about it. Here's the idea:

BT normally hands out a piece of a torrent, which we'll call piece #27, to leecher Beta. It hands out other pieces to other leechers, then Beta's turn comes around again, so Beta gets piece #44. That's normal seeding.

In initial-seeding, or super-seeding, or "frugal seeding" (which is probably the best name for it), the frugal-seeder, whom we'll call A, acts as if it were just another leecher, that "discovered" that is has piece #27, and gives it to leecher Beta. It goes on to other leechers and "discovers" more pieces, but now it's Beta's turn again. But the seeder doesn't give Beta a piece, and will not do so, until some other leecher, call him Gamma, offers piece #27 to A.

Now since it's really a seeder, A doesn't actually want piece #27 or any other piece, but it wants somebody ELSE to make the offer, thus proving that Beta has handed piece #27 around to other members of the swarm. Only if that happens will the frugal seeder offer Beta another piece. Otherwise, it will make Beta wait for a long time until it gets another piece. (Beta will eventually decide it's been choked and go on to other connections.)

That's it. That's the implementation. That's what it does and how it works, how Thompson designed it and implemented it, and all the other definitions you've heard are so much moonshine, especially the one about distributing each piece once and only once. I won't say that's a bad idea, though it does strike me as unrealistic, but that's not what frugal/super/inital seeding does.

The point is to ease the burden, at least theoretically, on those who pay for their internet connection by the uploaded kilobyte. That covers only a very, very few of us. That point, that goal, is what Thompson had in mind and why he created it, in order to encourage those users to seed without it being overly expensive for them. In theory, but often not in practice, and in a perfect network, this should MEAN that each piece gets handed out by the frugal seeder once and only once, as it gets distributed around the swarm. In fact, since the network isn't perfect, it doesn't work out that way.

But people should hopefully see that if and only if the network is perfect, this scheme will be, at best, no faster than normal seeding. In fact and in practice, it's quite a bit slower in terms of getting the torrent fully seeded, given comparable speed. It also feeds back and adds about 1 KB/s of download burden on the frugal-seeder acting-as-leecher.

Let's move on a step. Let's suppose we have two seeders operating, and seeder B gave Beta piece #101. Beta in turn offers that piece to frugal-seeder A. What should A do now? Should it regard piece #101 as already shared? Should it offer piece #101 to other swarm members, or not? It isn't a trivial question, and it's far from well defined how the behaviour ought to go.

Let's back up half a step. Leecher Beta decides that frugal-seeder A (whom, remember, it doesn't know is a seeder and thinks is just another leecher) is not all that wonderful a connection, so it decides that it will have better luck dropping that connecction in favor of other leechers, real ones this time. It shares its piece around with them (and remember, this is only eight or so at a time, out of all the others it's connected to), and the network topography is spotty and ununiform enough that piece #27 just doesn't get back to Seeder A, so A thinks that Beta never shared the piece around. What should A do with piece #27 now? Distribute it again to somebody else? Wait? For how long? This also isn't defined in the implementation.

In the last µtorrent implementation, the frugal-seeder ended up using about 25% MORE bandwidth to fully seed the torrent, than regular seeding. It is hopefully fixed in the current version, but there's enough else newly wrong with it that it doesn't matter.

Without a lot better definition, and some evidence that it even actually accomplishes the goal that it was designed to accomplish, frugal/super/inital seeding should be dead last on the priority list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cmiuc Newbie

cmiuc

Posted
Posted

Azureus & µTorrent's super seed do not work right. They are always being changed and worked on by the developers because they're always having problems. µTorrent's own mods and diehard fans would tell you its broken and use BitTornado. µTorrent 1.6 is the first version to have a semblance of a working super/ initial seed option.

Azureus, there stuff is always a mess, I'm not sure what they've done to it now. BitTornado 3.15 has a good version of super-seed but it has little bug in it that can cause problems. TheSHADOW has already stated that he's fixed it. He just hasn't released a new beta or full version yet.

Super/Initial seed is not a standard BitTorrent function. Very few people know how to use it properly. It's not needed.

As stated by dimchopicha2003, there are other things that need to be fixed first before this is even considered. Furthermore I'd rather have Azureus DHT & µTorrent PEX added before Initial-seed. You know, types functions that will actually help my downloads.

I agree with mr. tech man... Azureus IS real big mess. BC is just great! Uttorent is ok, but slow in both seeding and downloading. takes me forever while BC is fasters. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...