| www.dead-donkey.com https://forum.dead-donkey.com/ |
|
| mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore https://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=20670 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | spudthedestroyer [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:18 am ] | |
| Post subject: | mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore | |
Just remoted into my box in the uk and am pretty appauled by the performance of the client:
This leads me to the conclusion that emule is only really the viable / usable client for the ed2k network. |
||
| Author: | wargand [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:51 am ] | |||
| Post subject: | Re: mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore | |||
I dropped edonkey long ago in favour of bittorrent. The bittorrent protocol might have its shortcomings, but the developer community is far less elitist and the protocol far more open. It is relatively easy to implement and there is no discriminations amoung trackers or other clients as long as at a minimum standard is maintained. With edonkey on the other hand, I was present from the very beginnings when mldonkey was the first non-official client at all. It had its problems since the protocol was not open and had to be reverse engineered. Then came emule and added its own extensions to the protocol. And more than once I thought what a bunch of assholes the developers and especially the server maintainer were. Keeping things secret, implementing ways to favour the own client and 'rape' others. Thanks, but no thanks. I stopped using mldonkey or any other edonkey clients when I was sick of being used as seedbox, while I had to wait ages to get what I want. Strangely, though shunned by other clients when it came to downloads, I never had problems to upload. Noone can tell me that this is only a coincidence. |
||||
| Author: | elguaxo [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore |
I think something is wrong on your side. Some clients like mldonkey a bit less because it has no encryption and it seems to reask more often than standard mules, but the performance difference is not that big. I still use one mldonkey on a machine with low hardware resources. My upload is always maxed out and the download speeds are very close to a standard mule. Was KAD enabled? edit: the development of amule follows the standard mule very closely. Try that one if you can! |
|
| Author: | spudthedestroyer [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore |
Yes, config is fine. It's running from a nas but it is fully open. I think I'm going to stop using the nas to share and run mule on a windows box |
|
| Author: | spudthedestroyer [ Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:44 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore | |
 The client is fucked. Everything is green across the board and it performs like Tak's mom. Throw into the mix that its 'lost' the filenames for most of my downloads that appear as just hashes, i really do not rate mldonkey at all. Good in its day, now i consider it dead. I ran it on another box in another country and it performed like a dog too. |
||
| Author: | spudthedestroyer [ Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: mldonkey is not a feasible/usable ed2k client anymore |
okay, emule installed... anyone know an easy way to convert the urn_ed2k_DC610C894F8C1BB77D3248CD24751DC3 style mldonkey files to emule temp files? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| What's blood for, if not for shedding? | |