Kormath
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 26
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2008, 01:59:19 am » |
|
Bad news, it happened again.
This time in a different scenario... I was sending three files to the same contact, and the transfer failed with the second and third.
I have a problem with my router and those too ports were closed, so the issue may be caused by one of the following:
- There's some message you don't know that is sent when using the SB and aMSN doesn't ACK it.
- There's a problem when sending more than one file, maybe the ACKs going nuts and being sent to one of the others connections or something like that.
- It has something to do with having the ports closed, but I don't think that would be the cause.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kakaroto
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2008, 03:19:39 am » |
|
Hi, That would explain this : http://www.amsn-project.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=27262#27262This user is also sending through the SB. If you could get me an ethereal/wireshark dump of when you're doing this over the SB, that could help me figure it out and fix the problem once and for all. Thanks for the feedback. EDIT : Ahhh, I think I found the problem.. and it's now fixed in SVN revision 9478 : http://amsn.svn.sourceforge.net/amsn/?rev=9476&view=revIt was a typo!! look at the diff : http://amsn.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/amsn/trunk/amsn/msnp2p.tcl?r1=9476&r2=9475&pathrev=9476it's a 'set' that I wrote as 'get'.. so I was 'get'-ing a non existing value (and making it return the value I wanted to set as being the default fallback value if the variable does not exist) while I had to make it 'set' the value so that when I get a NAK, I make sure I do it on the right file.. since that value was never saved, the NAK was ignored.. assuming it was an invalid NAK. Please update and test to see if it fixed the bug! Thanks to nidhug and Kormath for the useful feedback that allowed me to find this little stupidity!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
KaKaRoTo
|
|
|
Kormath
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2008, 05:11:59 am » |
|
WTF, I was about to send you the dump after testing several things xDDD I'll try it tomorrow and see if it works  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kakaroto
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2008, 06:51:44 am » |
|
lol, sorry! I hope it's fixed. I'll be waiting for your precious feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
KaKaRoTo
|
|
|
Nidhug
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2008, 04:35:59 pm » |
|
It works!  I'm currently on a different network than I usually use, but I don't think that's the cause because I'm firewalled here too. I didn't realize that, I assumed uPnP on the router would fix any port forwarding issues but I guess now I'll go and assume myself a static ip and set up port forwarding. Thanks for your effort! Now I don't really need Windows for anything anymore! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kakaroto
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2008, 05:22:57 pm » |
|
cool, thank you! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
KaKaRoTo
|
|
|
Nidhug
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2008, 05:30:38 pm » |
|
I still have one question. :oops: When I send a file now after assigning myself a static ip and setting up port forwarding, there seems to be a direct connection (about 150 kb/s). But when someone behind a router sends me something (who hasn't opened his ports cause he doesn't know how) that transfer has a slower connection, which seems obvious cause in that case the transfer would go via the Switchboard right? But then, when I try to send a file at the same time, my sending is suddenly back to 5 kb/s which makes me assume it's going via the Switchboard as well! Why does it do that? I guess this is not so much a question about aMSN as it is about the MSN networks... I'm still curious though.  Regardless, I'm happy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kakaroto
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2008, 05:38:55 pm » |
|
Hi,
When sending OR receiving a file, the protocol negociates who will act as a server, so if you're not firewalled, and even if your friend is firewalled, you can get a direct connection whether you are sending or receiving. BUT you probably opened one port in your router, you sent one file, it uses that port, then you tried to send or receive a second file, but the opened port was already used, so it couldn't establish a direct connection, that's why it uses the switchboard.
Make sure to forward a range of ports. Mainly 6891 to 6900 for example, this way you can have multiple file transfers at the same time, and have them all use a direct connection.
p.s.: this is already discussed in the forum, you might find more details if you search for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
KaKaRoTo
|
|
|
Nidhug
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2008, 05:52:20 pm » |
|
Crap, sorry about that. Should've searched. And thanks again. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kormath
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2008, 12:08:56 am » |
|
Bad news, now it's worse than before when sending two files :S
The first file goes fine, but the second one stops almost instantly. It just sends 2 or 10k.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kakaroto
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2008, 12:50:21 am » |
|
/me shoots himself...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
KaKaRoTo
|
|
|
Kormath
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 26
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2008, 01:10:29 am » |
|
Lol, at least you fixed the typo x) Oh, I was talking about the two files thing and I forgot that I didn't sent the post yesterday... maybe you'll find it useful: The issue seems to happen when sending more than one file over the SB. This is what I tried:
- Sending one file using a direct connection: works.
- Sending two files using a direct connection: works.
- Sending one file using the SB: works.
- Sending two files using the SB: error.
- Sending two files using a direct connection and a third using the SB: seems to work*
* The first two transfers didn't cancel, but both files had 1k missing when they arrived. Don't know if it could be aMSN related. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
