gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
gfx gfx
gfx
75925 Posts in 13335 Topics by 2670 Members - Latest Member: pierced3x October 22, 2019, 04:59:58 am
*
gfx*gfx
gfx
WinMX World :: Forum  |  WinMX Help  |  Upload/Download Issues  |  Post reply ( Re: WinMX speed limit ? )
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What year is it next year?:
What's the name of the site this forum belongs to?:
What program is this site about?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: White Stripes
« on: May 29, 2015, 07:00:41 pm »

10K/s down 7K/s up for overhead... not much but winmx uses a modified http to get files... it may be from the old days but http is as fast as whatever connection it has....

...download a linux iso (or other large test file) with ncsa mosaic sometime... ;)
Posted by: Bluey_412
« on: May 28, 2015, 10:34:10 pm »

Something not mentioned, and often forgotten is that by design, WinMX is kinda slow because it was designed to use no more than 10% of available bandwidth.

WinMX is not a 'Skit and Watch it' program, like torrents etc, it was designed so that the user could do other work on his computer with WinMX running in the background, even on corporate networks, but it would get you your files, whereas a Torrent would catch the attention of the SysAdmin, and get blocked
Posted by: JarJarTheCGiTroll
« on: May 28, 2015, 06:28:40 pm »

Thanks for the replies everyone, some interesting info there.

I wish I had a 300KB/s cap per transfer - in my case it's 300KB/s *total* (all transfers combined).

I did some experimenting around with ports and other things and could get higher speeds for downloads (although not by much, and again far below my capabilities and with lots of people connected simultaneously), but not for uploads (also far below my connection).

Seems there's a real possibility I'm stuck with some packet shaper somewhere limiting WinMX severely while being far more permissive with bittorrent (morons >:-D ). Maybe an old setting left from older days when WinMX was more active, by some lazy sysadmin.

I say that this whole protocol shaping thing is racist. That's right, racist. It's like, "welcome Mr. HTTP, always glad to see you Sir, your luxury suite is ready" vs "I'm sorry Mr. WinMX, we don't serve your kind on this establishment, please use the back door etc". RACISSSSSMM !!!!
Posted by: Pri
« on: May 25, 2015, 04:48:15 pm »

I've looked at the source code of the XML file that specifies how PFSense detects WinMX and it does appear to use just a very basic port based approach:

Code: [Select]
$p2plist['winmx'] = array();
$p2plist['winmx'][] = array('WinMX', 'tcp', '6699', '6699', 'both');

I didn't use those port numbers when I was being throttled. As I was trying to diagnose the issue I changed them. Of course I don't know what firewall stuff they use. Here is one interesting tidbit, I had two servers within the same data centre. They could only communicate with each other using their WAN addresses as they weren't in the same rack. Connections between them over WinMX were not throttled and I could easily hit 100Mb/s between them. But if the connections went out over the internet, locked to 300KB/s per individual transfer.

I've read previously some data centres shape any encrypted traffic that isn't recognised. There are ways to fingerprint certain types of traffic even encrypted so you can't tell what it is being transferred due to the encryption but you can surmise what protocol it is based on latencies, hops, packet headers, port numbers, TTL's and so on.
Posted by: GhostShip
« on: May 25, 2015, 08:01:21 am »

That is the specific reason ports are not fixed in the WinMX client, however the cache ports are less flexible, an annoying weakness.
Posted by: White Stripes
« on: May 25, 2015, 02:20:03 am »

Quote
I am not aware of any other time they are able to throttle/block as due to the encryption they are unable to read the packet data.

if i were the the programmer of that traffic manager i wouldnt care.. the port numbers would be flagged as 'using winmx' and everything would be throttled.. encrypted or not...
Posted by: GhostShip
« on: May 24, 2015, 07:33:27 pm »

The signatures that are detected fall into two camps, the main method is simply to detect the plaintext GET command for files transfer that many p2p systems utilise and a more WinMX specific method was to monitor for the cache to client exchange packet that can be used to set the throttling mechanism on due to its fixed format, I am not aware of any other time they are able to throttle/block as due to the encryption they are unable to read the packet data.
Posted by: Pri
« on: May 24, 2015, 08:32:35 am »

Probably. Though these are loaded in as profiles and not hard-coded in to the software so it's more a case of leaving profiles in a folder.
Posted by: White Stripes
« on: May 24, 2015, 12:10:36 am »

strange collection... a list of some that are long since gone and yet missing some notables that have been around for years.. i smell code rot...
Posted by: Pri
« on: May 23, 2015, 09:53:49 am »

By the way if that image is a bit hard to see (Forum scales it) here is a direct link: http://i.imgur.com/wgI3ZR5.png
Posted by: Pri
« on: May 23, 2015, 09:52:39 am »

Yep. Here is a screenshot showing the built in traffic shaper from PFSense in the latest version of the firewall. This isn't provided by a plugin or package, it's built right in.



As you can see it not only lists WinMX at the bottom it also has Napster! - Sophos UTM also has WinMX listed but I'm not running it right now and Cisco's management stuff also has it in their P2P shape menu which I'm also not running right now. PFSense 4 lyfe.
Posted by: White Stripes
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:29:17 pm »

Quote
...all have built in profiles for detecting WinMX and it's a simple 1 click checkbox...
over 10 years after the newest winmx version this equipment still has bandwidth management for it?
Posted by: Pri
« on: May 22, 2015, 09:20:57 am »

Which ISP is this? I was renting a server from OVH in france which has the exact same limit. 300KB/s per connection. I could for example open 12 separate connections between two servers and each single connection would hit a 300KB/s cap and go no faster.

To get around the problem I switched to a different company. By the way if anyone was wondering, high end routers such as those offered by Cisco, Sophos UTM, PFSense etc all have built in profiles for detecting WinMX and it's a simple 1 click checkbox to detect and manage it. So companies that purchase equipment from vendors can simply go to the P2P management menu and tick boxes for WinMX, eDonkey, DC++ etc - It's not hard for them.
Posted by: silicon_toad2000
« on: May 21, 2015, 04:39:03 am »

well my connection is about 1.1MB/s or 11 Mb/s and ive maxed that out with just winmx.

plenty of ISP's used to throttle winmx as packet inspection finds those packets pretty easily, it's just a rule in their firewalls which they set and forget so there's no reason they wouldn't and very little reason they would.

I'm assuming you don't have a bandwidth throttle set in the winmx settings, could you confirm that's not the case so we can rule that out.

Posted by: JarJarTheCGiTroll
« on: May 21, 2015, 12:02:50 am »

Are you seeing this limit when only downloading one file with multiple connections or on multiple files with multiple connections?
All cases.

Example: I have user1 who sends to me at around 300KB, and user2 who sends at around the same speed, but only when only one of them is connected. Now I connect to them both simultaneously - all of a sudden, each one drop their speeds for a combined total of around 300KB. I disconnect one of them, the remaining one automatically climbs back up to 300KB.

Hence, throttling. But where ? What ISP would bother with shaping WinMX at this point, while ignoring torrents and everything else ? Doesn't make sense.

Ergo, my speculation about it being a WinMX limitation of some sort.

It WOULD be extremely interesting to get an idea of what people out there can do in terms of WinMX maximum speeds, especially those on high-speed connections. Any idea of how to get a statistic, other than posting a poll or something like that ?

@wonderer: it's a modern system and connection with modern speeds (meaning, forget about overhead and maximum connections inside reasonable limits i.e. just a few dozens), and torrents don't present the same limitation even when running hundreds of transfers.
gfxgfx
gfx
©2005-2019 WinMXWorld.com. All rights reserved.
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 17 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!