topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Sunday December 21, 2025, 1:56 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 [116] 117 118 119 120 121 ... 364next
2876
N.A.N.Y. 2010 / Re: Create Dummy File
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 06:32 PM »
https://www.donation...l/index.html#BigByte

How is it different from BigByte?  :'(
Apparently BigByte works by copying files together... which is an amazingly bad way of doingthings. The fsutil app that lanux128 refers to in that thread is probably a much much faster way of achieving the same.

Btw this application does more than just generating a single dummy file - and comes with a wonderfully 1990'es-visualbasic-style GUI :P
2877
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 06:21 PM »
Well, assuming you're using a browser to interface with the proxy, have you tried tweaking browser settings? For instance, disables HTTP pipelining when it can see it's dealing with a proxy server...

Apart from that, it's still hard to say much else - there's unfortunately no such thing as magic in computer software. How to speed things up depends on the rest of the software... you might be able to use a different proxy software (or not, depending on how it interfaces with the prefetching). Perhaps client actions can be anticipated and acted on, perhaps not. It also depends on whether you're going to transfer a few big files, or a lot of small ones.. there's lots and lots of parameters :)
2878
General Software Discussion / Re: Alternatives to Daemon Tools?
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 05:45 PM »
Yep - without a driver component, applications can't directly access files from inside the ISO images; the best you can get without a driver is a shell extension that handles things transparently, but that would involve extracting/re-inserting files from the image...
2879
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 05:42 PM »
are there any software that can do the ====> part.
Dunno - that would pretty much depend on the client in your diagram :) - and the local http server as well.

As stated before, you aren't going to find software that can perform magic and parallelize stuff without support from it's endpoints... and you provide very little information on goals and involved software, so it's hard to give any concrete recommendations.

So, what's the deal? Is this understanding correct?

1) high-speed server preFETCHes HTTP resources
2) server PUSHes those resources to "client" machine
3) "client" machine runs a http proxy, and web browser on "client" machine access that local proxy

...and you want the PUSH to be faster than it currently is, and you don't want to wait for entire FETCH to be done before you PUSH?
2880
General Software Discussion / Re: Alternatives to Daemon Tools?
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 05:18 PM »
Pismo file mounter is pretty good since it doesn't install any special driver tough it can only handle ISO images however you can pair it up with AnyToISO Converter (last free version) to get the most out the program.
If it doesn't install drivers, you're going to have to extract files from your ISO archives rather than accessing them directly - that kinda sucks.
2881
General Software Discussion / Re: Alternatives to Daemon Tools?
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 04:44 PM »
MagicDisc...EWW!!!!! I hate programs which make a format that can only be opened in their program. YUCK!
So what? It supports .iso and .cue/bin, just produce your images in another app - MagicDisc works just fine for mounting the stuff, which is the important part.
2882
General Software Discussion / Re: Alternatives to Daemon Tools?
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 04:20 PM »
Don't mess with daemon-tools if you don't need it's piracy features.

Check out MagicDisc or Virtual CloneDrive instead :)
2883
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 04:19 PM »
You mention reverse proxy - does this mean the proxy does connect-back to the client machine, rather than the client connecting to the proxy? If this is the case, the client probably isn't a standard web browser :)

If it's a regular HTTP client, like a browser, then there's not much more you can do on the proxy side, though - the client needs to be tweaked.
2884
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 03:25 PM »
There isn't really anything the proxy in and by itself can do to help you out
I am looking for this kind of software. Thus this post.
And I'm saying it can't be done without client+server support :). If you're talking HTTP connections, then something could be done - the proxy could split client requests into multiple server requests with varying content-length... but that wouldn't buy you very much, and if the bottleneck is between client->proxy, then it buys you nothing at all.

Anyway, I'm getting 2MB/s with regular TCP connections on my 20Mbit line, so...
I am so jealous
:)

I started with a 512/128 line, and switched to 4096/256 when I figured out it was only $20/month more expensive. Since that, my ISP has been doubling my speed every now and then... too bad I've pretty much hit the limit of what ADSL2+ offers, hope they'll start reducing price soon, or move me to VDSL :P
2885
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 03:09 PM »
Ok, I am a bit confused, what else should I explain?
Which software is involved :)

There isn't really anything the proxy in and by itself can do to help you out, here - as long as it supports multiple concurrent connections. It's up to the client and server software on each ends of the proxy to do the parallel transfers.

Oh btw, BitTorrent is way faster in UDP, perhaps you are choosing the wrong client  :P
Hm, I haven't seen peer-to-peer data transfers via UDP with BitTorrent? I thought UDP communications were limited to trackerless peer exchange and such, and not the actual data transfers?

Anyway, I'm getting 2MB/s with regular TCP connections on my 20Mbit line, so... :)
2886
Living Room / Re: How to stop junk [snail] mail?
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 02:31 PM »
Same here in .dk - you fill out a form where you can tick off "I don't want advertisements" and "I don't want the free newspapers", which post.dk registers in it's Big Evil DatabaseTM, and then you get the stickers. The advantage of not just getting the stickers is you can save the poor postal workers from dragging shitloads of commercials to your postbox only to see the sticker...
2887
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 02:27 PM »
Why should you worry about my udp transporting speed? I can download BitTorrent fast enough.
I don't really worry about your UDP speed, all I'm saying is that (unless rate-limited some way), UDP goes full throttle and pumps out packets as fast as your link can handle - unlike TCP which does congestion control, and has slow-start.

BitTorrent uses TCP and not UDP, but has massively parallel connections - but you probably already know that.

It's just one personal remote server (reverse proxy) which is transferring data really slow. What should I do? I can't wait all the http resources to be full downloaded then use multithreaded download tools to download them because they are requested on demand. So what's your guy's suggestion?
You really need to explain in more detail what it is you want to do, and which software is involved. As I've already mentioned, you can't just automagically make a proxy parallelize things without client+server support...
2888
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 02:53 AM »
If it's a custom protocol, how on earth would a generic proxy server be able to automagically split the workload for you? :) - you can't just say "take this data stream and split it into three new ones", that kind of thing requires support both in the client and server side programs.

If your UDP data rate is poor, it's either because one (or both) end(s) are rate-limited somehow, or because the protocol is designed poorly (waiting for ACKs). With TCP you can gain a little by multiple connections even if there's no rate-limiting going on, but UDP always goes full throttle and shouldn't benefit from parallelizing - au contraire.
2889
Living Room / Re: I'm beginning my experiment with Linux and other OS's.
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 02:48 AM »
There is no hint of the sluggishness that I'm used to with Windows.
Even with accelerated video drivers, stuff like resizing windows tend to be sluggish compared to Windows because of the way X11 and the various graphics toolkits work. And last time I had a native linux install on my workstation, the default gnome text editor started in about the same time as Visual Studio 2005... not impressed. Also, second-time (hot-from-cache) launches weren't much faster, leaving me thinking that there's something horribly broken somewhere. I guess things could have changed since those couple of years back, but seeing how slow stuff launches on friends Linux and OS X laptops, I'm not convinced.

But I hate how you have to be constantly tweaking it and taking care of it to make sure you have no problems.
You do? I haven't experienced this since the Win9x days, and that's even though I install/uninstall a lot of stuff. Since jumping onto Win2k, things have run pretty well unless I've messed up majorly, say by writing buggy driver code and testing it on my main machine rather than a VM or dedicated test box. Same goes for all the machines I've managed.

And no matter what anyone says, I strongly feel that for the power of any given pc's hardware, Windows makes very poor use of it.
IMHO it does - each new version of Windows has raised the minimum hardware requirements, and not always by justified amounts, but at the same time has been better at utilizing higher-end machines. While Win7 has higher requirements than XP64, it certainly runs a whole lot better on my workstation. Same goes for Vista on my laptop (which isn't even all that powerful). If anything is sluggish it's the applications - and if that bothers you, stick with older versions instead of going for latest-and-greatest if you don't need it. I could live with Office2000 just fine, which is blindingly fast compared to 2003 and 2007... but because of cost, I stick with OpenOffice which is a sluggish pig even compared to Office2007.

When I read explanations of how to do something in Linux, I tense up.  The terminology, the assumptions about what a user knows and is comfortable with, seem very alien.
Amen to that - despite the polishing-up of a lot of distros, linux just isn't written for regular users. As soon as you need to do something slightly non-trivial that the GUI frontend won't let you do (mindbogglingly difficult and unordinary tasks like using multiple monitors come to mind) you gotta drop to a terminal and very poor documentation.

Anyway, it's all a matter of being able to experiment and opening our minds up.  Let go of emotions, and be rational about the whole thing.  After all, it's only software, there's no need to be emotionally tied to it.
One thing is being emotionally attached, another is being disappointed with mostly half-assed clones of Windows software.

Incidentally I'm not sure why the "Macs are better for graphics" myth continues.
Yeah, that does seem pretty silly :D

How do I just remain logged in permanently as an admin?
You don't, just like you don't turn off UAC on Vista/Win7. You don't need to (and really really shouldn't) be logged on as admin for extended periods of times.
2890
N.A.N.Y. 2010 / Re: NANY 2010 Teaser: Crush MCP (Master Control Program)
« Last post by f0dder on December 21, 2009, 02:25 AM »
Hey Crush, I don't mean to discourage you, but as mouser already mentioned you'll need a low-level (driver) hook in order to prevent NastyCodeTM from running - simply scanning with toolhelp/psapi every X milliseconds leaves too much of a gap for malware to run (and making the wait-time too slow will end up chewing too many CPU cycles). Also, if the malware injects itself into a running process, starts through a buffer overflow in flash/acrobatreader/whatever or loads as a service through svchost, you'll have a hard time catching it this way.

So instead of trying to keep a system clean by doing usermode app whitelisting, it's probably better to focus on the logging part - less chance of killing benign processes that way, too :)
2891
Stoic Joker: make the award too hard to achieve and not many companies would want to participate, though... I'm not for yet another meaningless "this'll look good on an awards page" kind of thing, but I do believe it should be something attainable with a product aimed at end-users and not "geekboy powerheads" like the participants on this forum.
2892
fSekrit / Re: LATEST VERSION: fSekrit 1.40 shrinkwrapped!
« Last post by f0dder on December 20, 2009, 03:15 PM »
That use-case sounds fair enough, but then we'll also have to consider why you enable read-only... as I interpret the original request, it was to avoid "tampering" with the encrypted notes. To achieve general "protect me against my fumble-finger saving", you could set the +R attribute on your file.

But let's have a discussion about this :). And if you have anything to say about the other four points (or anything else), let me know - I'm open for comments.
2893
Well, PayPal sucks for anything but small funds - no big news there, and the developers really should have done a bit of googling before they decided to handle things this way... Not saying that how PayPal handles business is good, but it's not exactly news that they screw people over.
2894
fSekrit / Re: LATEST VERSION: fSekrit 1.40 shrinkwrapped!
« Last post by f0dder on December 20, 2009, 12:36 PM »
1) I've been considering this, but don't really know - the original request for read-only actually wanted it to be even more restrictive than it is. Which use-case leads to enabling and then disabling read-only mode?

2) You can already achieve this by choosing "Save As"... I could do a "don't clear passphrase on file->new" option, which would be easy for current version of fSekrit. However, it would be more intuitive for file->new to open a new fSekrit editor window, rather than the current method of just clearing the contents. If/when that is added, the cache feature would require passing the passphrase on the commandline (or some more complicated IPC method), which I don't really feel like doing. Commandline is a security risk, other IPC method is too much code overhead for too little win. I'll ponder a bit about this.

3) yep, and it's something I've wanted to add. Next version will have copy/paste disabled on the passphrase dialogs, but an "unmask password" checkbox (which will obviously clear whatever you've already typed when you unhide).

4) should be, considering I'm using a RichEdit control :) - actually I'm currently specifying explicitly that I only want pure text on edit->paste, it'd be less code to acched rich formatted text. I do not plan on adding rich editing features to fSekrit, but pasting from an external document should be doable.
2895
General Software Discussion / Re: Parallel proxy transfer software
« Last post by f0dder on December 20, 2009, 05:50 AM »
Hm, I think you'll have to describe what you're trying to attempt in more detail.

First, at least if we're talking HTTP/FTP and not some custom protocol, the "multi" aspect is done by the client, not the server (or proxy server).

Second, threading isn't necessary to do parallel transfers :)

Third, if you have that tiny data amounts, doing parallel transfers is going to hurt your performance, not improve it, because of the way TCP works (starts out slow and gradually increases transfer window size).
2896
Activation/License/Language Help / Re: License Keys
« Last post by f0dder on December 20, 2009, 05:44 AM »
jose miguel: emoze has nothing to do with DonationCoder, so you should really contact the emoze people about your issue.
2897
Most of the time it suits me fine to have Vista giving priority to the programs. But I have more than 6.000 images in a single folder, and to wait for Vista to refresh the thumbnails is a p@|n in the @$$. For this reason I would very much appreciate if it could be made easy to toggle between "Give priority to Programs" and "Give priority to Background Services". A simple AHK script.exe, maybe.
Huh? :huh:

Changing that settings afaik only changes the timeslice threads get before another get scheduled... does that really matter wrt. loading image thumbnails?

(To do any benchmarking, you'd have to reboot the machine to exclude disk cache from the equation)
2898
Living Room / Re: The Great Aussie Firewall to Go Ahead
« Last post by f0dder on December 18, 2009, 10:50 AM »
Yes, I agree seatbelt use should be mandatory, but I really didn't care for the promises of how there'd be no pull-overs for only that violation and then they went back on their word.
Exactly.

BitTorrent (I assume that is why you mention DHT) is a rather unsafe way to traffick in data, especially if it is anything less than 100% legal. It's something akin to pulling your car up in front of a busy shopping mall & then proceeding to load stolen goods into your trunk. There are better, more subtle ways, to do what BitTorrent does, but would keep you under the radar & probably would never trigger The Man's Firewall Of Death.
With forced Protocol Encryption, they can't see what's being transferred - add DHT and it becomes really hard to prove anything but "there's a lot of data flowing through a truckload of connections". Once that is enough to get somebody convicted, I'm all for grabbing firearms and overthrowing the guv'ments.
2899
General Software Discussion / Re: Google creates a URL shortener, but it's limited
« Last post by f0dder on December 18, 2009, 09:26 AM »
Yes, you may end up sending text longer than 160 characters, but the actual tweet is shorter.
The length of the text the receivers read will only end up being those ~160 characters, yes, but I thought the point of twitter was that the entire message should only be ~sms-length?
2900
Worth supporting, even though I'm pretty low on cash :)
Pages: prev1 ... 111 112 113 114 115 [116] 117 118 119 120 121 ... 364next