How does one allow queuing beyond 100?

[PenMax]

  How does one go about getting WinMx to allow beyond 100 so that they hang in?

[GhostShip]

I find as long as you have told winmx to download and your set at AEQ 100 it will join any que, I joined a 300 one once that took two days to reach the bottom of 

[PenMax]

  I couldn't edit my post ... how is that done???

  I meant how does one set one's own queue in one's own WinMX so that it allows more than one hundred people to queue in one's own queue in one's own WinMX??

[KM]

editing posts is disabled to prevent things like what you just tried to do (change your question so it looks like he replied to something different)

but if you mean for more than 100 others to join your queue... they can, just that as AEQ only goes to 100, once your queue hits 100 people will stop automatically joining it - the reason that AEQ has a limit is to stop everyone having queues several thousand users long like a certain other p2p network with no limits

[PenMax]

editing posts is disabled to prevent things like what you just tried to do (change your question so it looks like he replied to something different)

but if you mean for more than 100 others to join your queue... they can, just that as AEQ only goes to 100, once your queue hits 100 people will stop automatically joining it - the reason that AEQ has a limit is to stop everyone having queues several thousand users long like a certain other p2p network with no limits

  The first bit is so intolerant of a newcomer as well as unkind. I noticed I'd left a word out as soon as my post popped up after clicking on POST, so had I been able to Edit I would have immediately added the word 'queuing' before 'beyond ...', probably in time to change my post before a reply!

  The second bit opinionates rather than answers my question.

[PenMax]

PS:
Why have u identified my host??
And a correction: it's not 'Internet Exploiter' but 'Internet Explorer' that I use!

[nylly444]

PenMax, the editing of Posts is disabled for a good reason here so people can't edit their posts and completely change their meaning. This has happened in the past, that's why we disabled it although it can be a bit of a nuisance.

You can always either make a new post or tell one of the moderators to edit it if you feel it's really necessary.

As to your question, winmx itself is not able to allow more than 100 users to queue automatically.
As far as I know the Add-on Programm MxMonitor comes with a feature to rotate queues so that more users can queue automatically, but since I'm not using it someone else will have to tell you more about that

[PenMax]

  Thank You Kindly nylly444 ... I really appreciate your response and the way you responded.  I feel a bit more welcome in this forum.

[GnarlySnarly]

PenMax, the editing of Posts is disabled for a good reason here so people can't edit their posts and completely change their meaning. This has happened in the past, that's why we disabled it although it can be a bit of a nuisance.

You can always either make a new post or tell one of the moderators to edit it if you feel it's really necessary.

As to your question, winmx itself is not able to allow more than 100 users to queue automatically.
As far as I know the Add-on Programm MxMonitor comes with a feature to rotate queues so that more users can queue automatically, but since I'm not using it someone else will have to tell you more about that

People should be allowed to edit their own posts.  Just because a few edited there posts that made some reply seem silly or unfounded is no excuse.  All you have to do when replying is to quote the part you are replying to.  The OP can't edited his quoted words that way.  Regardless. the few times that may happen doesn't justify denying the users the ability to correct typos, misstatements and misinformation.

as to relying on mxmonitor - please don't.  its queue reduction method is very unfair.  it deletes those who have been waiting the longest from the queue.  many of mxmonitor features were created by a very cynical, untrusting person, one who was not interested in sharing freely but rather was more concerned with selling/bartering/trading files.  the mxmonitor auto-revenge ignores and disconnects are an example of this sad world view.

the question for you perhaps should be, why are you allowing your queue to be so big?

do you allow queue hogs to make 10, 20 or 30 file requests at a time?  If so, i suggest you filter them with leechammer.  I haven't heard any good reason to allow auto-queueing of more than 2 files/user at a time.  Leechammer can be used to enforce this, by removing excessive requests at intervals, without ignoring the user like mxmonitor does, unless they get really abusive and insist on sending a request flood of 10+ files at once.

In addition to limiting file request to 2 or 3  per user at a time, you might try opening up more slots so that a traffic bottleneck doesn't happen.  sellers/traders like to open just 1 slot or even hack winmx so that 0 slots are available unless they manually start a file or have an automatic reciprocol trade trigger a start.  If you prefer just to share and not do the tit for tat trade dance, then opening as many slots as you can for your UL bw speed may be better.  If you open 1 slot and someone on a dialup gets a 700mb movie, your queue won't move for days

[Bearded Blunder]

No reason.. hmmm does it make any odds if a user q's for 20 tracks? or that one albw?  MxMon isn't a baddy, it just needs setting up sensibly... leechammer can be set up to be cruel too

[PenMax]

Well, these were the bad old early days for me with WinMX World.  I'm glad they're over.  It was an uncomfortable baptism of fire.

Incidentally, I never never ever did change from the round-100-limit running of my WinMX ... 

[Bearded Blunder]

there may be a way to do it.. japanese users seem to have silly queues.. i've joined ones up in the 3000 range, however whatever hack they're using is actually a bad idea, as queues get intolerably long, winmx finds it's maximum number of sources, joins those inordinately long queues & then doesn't join the one for that freshly online user with a queue of 3.. & you spend 6 days waiting to crawl up 3000 only for THAT user to go offline as you reach 97... result.. everyone waits forever & nobody GETS files...

[SamSeeSam]

Plus he risk of crashing is pretty high with such large lists. I mean, they still show inn the uploads.
My winmx crashed when I tried to load once over a 1000 files I forgot to remove them after I got them from a user.

Cheers

[KM]

there is a good reason winmx doesn't allow you to auto-join queues over 100... which if you ask me should actually have been a much lower number - people sharing small files don't get queues that long so the only queues that long are large files, which means a very very long wait if you even get the file

you can look at the history of many p2p networks and see the various "features" and "improvements" that in every case has caused degradation - the fastest networks have no queues and no multi-source downloading, although those features may seem to be better for yourself, once widespread the overall effect is much worse performance (as everyone else is now taking up 5 slots instead of 1 so you have to queue, then everyone is queued 20 times so you end up in a really long queue etc...)

[SamSeeSam]

But it does reduce your waiting time. So if you have got your files from someone else, then you get out of everyone else's queues as well. So it does seem to be better than having only one source. Suppose he goes offline, then you are in a soup.
Suppose you join a queue of 100 to get a movie. Just a few minutes later, another person with all slots free comes and has your file adn you connect to him. Then:

You get your file.
You also get of of other people's queues faster.
You can act as an extra source yourself.

So I do think it is good. I also think that the limitation of 100 is equally important though

Cheers

[KM]

it is only faster for you if you are the only person doing it, many p2p networks have started off with no queues and no multi-source downloads then added those "improvements" later, and every single one of them has shown that it drops speeds and decreases performance... for the obvious reasons above

if there are 40 people with a file and 20 people downloading it with no multi-source and no queues etc, then there are 20 slots free still so when you want the file you have 20 people to chose from. now add the "improvement" and each of those 20 downloaders is now downloading from 2 sources each, there are now no slots and you can't get the file. so then you add the queue system so you are next in the queue and can get it as soon as someone else finishes... except each of those 20 users also adds queueing so now each of those 40 people with the file has 1 upload going and 19 people in its queue - now you have to queue behind everyone else before you can get your file... note that in this example the users have stayed the same, it started out with you going and downloading a file straight away but after "improving it" you now have a large wait before you get your download... (of course in reality there are other factors, for example the other users will often complete faster, however it will still go from the initial instant download to instead having to wait just by "improving" it)

the same things have happened repeatedly on many p2p networks with the exact same result every single time without exception

yes multi-source can be beneficial if there are more sources than downloaders, however it can also be harmful if there are not. and queues can possibly help with a couple of users, however once a queue gets above 4 or 5 in length it is doing more harm than good