EVE Search - NO FTP Mirrors

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

NO FTP Mirrors

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 01:57:00 - [1] All the FTP mirrors are down. I need resume of a half-finished file. I won't use a spyware riddled download manager. Someone from CCP please upload to an FTP mirror somewhere. This time use equipment that can handle the load. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 01:57:00 - [2] All the FTP mirrors are down. I need resume of a half-finished file. I won't use a spyware riddled download manager. Someone from CCP please upload to an FTP mirror somewhere. This time use equipment that can handle the load. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:21:00 - [3] Bittorrent was terribly slow, had no resume, was sucking all my upload bandwidth.... and generally sucked. So..... How bout I offer to mirror the file in the US.... CCP? You want everything free? or are you willing to buy some really cheap good quality US bandwidth to help with deployment? ICQ: 10638430 -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:21:00 - [4] Bittorrent was terribly slow, had no resume, was sucking all my upload bandwidth.... and generally sucked. So..... How bout I offer to mirror the file in the US.... CCP? You want everything free? or are you willing to buy some really cheap good quality US bandwidth to help with deployment? ICQ: 10638430 -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:32:00 - [5] Yes I know bittorrent... It's clean, featureless, sucks and isn't going to work for me on this dialup link I find myself on. With no resume I hardly expect a 10 hour link to work for downloading a 60 hour file. Then with it sucking 100% of my upstream bandwidth it's kinda hard to use the computer for anything other than a paper weight. So I say again..... CCP, everything for free? or will to spend a tiny amount on deployment? I can get you setup in a major datacenter in the US with links to all the major backbones with very cheap bandwidth rates. This would make life a lot easier for a great many of your customers. Short turn around, cheap, reduce churn from upset downloaders. ICQ: 10638430 -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:32:00 - [6] Yes I know bittorrent... It's clean, featureless, sucks and isn't going to work for me on this dialup link I find myself on. With no resume I hardly expect a 10 hour link to work for downloading a 60 hour file. Then with it sucking 100% of my upstream bandwidth it's kinda hard to use the computer for anything other than a paper weight. So I say again..... CCP, everything for free? or will to spend a tiny amount on deployment? I can get you setup in a major datacenter in the US with links to all the major backbones with very cheap bandwidth rates. This would make life a lot easier for a great many of your customers. Short turn around, cheap, reduce churn from upset downloaders. ICQ: 10638430 -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:46:00 - [7] I'm offering a solution. CCP can help their customers, or leave them with nothing. Bittorrent IS NOT a solution I and MANY others can use. btw the HTTP downloads are also now all but dead. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 02:46:00 - [8] I'm offering a solution. CCP can help their customers, or leave them with nothing. Bittorrent IS NOT a solution I and MANY others can use. btw the HTTP downloads are also now all but dead. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:03:00 - [9] I'm only on this dialup for this week. I'm currently transfering it to one of my servers, however even at 100MBit it's slow, guess that's the UK server being hammered. Seriously..... US bandwidth is sooooooo cheap.... just spend a couple of dollars and get it setup in a major datacenter which can more then handle the load. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:03:00 - [10] I'm only on this dialup for this week. I'm currently transfering it to one of my servers, however even at 100MBit it's slow, guess that's the UK server being hammered. Seriously..... US bandwidth is sooooooo cheap.... just spend a couple of dollars and get it setup in a major datacenter which can more then handle the load. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:42:00 - [11] Nathan you've got mail. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:42:00 - [12] Nathan you've got mail. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:46:00 - [13] bittorrent overwrote a 80meg file without resuming for me. Wasted hours. I'm slowly, transfering the file to the US where I can FTP to it. However the UK servers are being hammered. Just want to sort out a decent mirror for this as I know there are hundreds of others in the same situation as me. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 03:46:00 - [14] bittorrent overwrote a 80meg file without resuming for me. Wasted hours. I'm slowly, transfering the file to the US where I can FTP to it. However the UK servers are being hammered. Just want to sort out a decent mirror for this as I know there are hundreds of others in the same situation as me. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 04:21:00 - [15] The UK server just died yet again. Very, Very, Very close to unsubscribing and charging back. Lets say I kept playing for 3 years, that's about US$700. This is what I don't get..... It would cost you around US$0.015 to provide a decent download link. Hardly worth keeping a customer for that huge cost I know......... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 04:21:00 - [16] The UK server just died yet again. Very, Very, Very close to unsubscribing and charging back. Lets say I kept playing for 3 years, that's about US$700. This is what I don't get..... It would cost you around US$0.015 to provide a decent download link. Hardly worth keeping a customer for that huge cost I know......... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 05:12:00 - [17] Haven't got a reply from you Nathan.... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 05:12:00 - [18] Haven't got a reply from you Nathan.... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:11:00 - [19] That's ok.... I'm upto 2Meg now. After downloading hundreds of meg of incomplete files from every known source. Wonder how many users are up to 1Meg and have already requested their chargeback forms from the bank. How bout you spend that $0.015/customer on us. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:11:00 - [20] That's ok.... I'm upto 2Meg now. After downloading hundreds of meg of incomplete files from every known source. Wonder how many users are up to 1Meg and have already requested their chargeback forms from the bank. How bout you spend that $0.015/customer on us. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:43:00 - [21] BitTorrent for the patch in Australia runs at 0.001 kb/s. As it downloads more and more people will try to download it off me. Which will stop me from being able to work for the next 100-600 hours.... Seems like the best option eh. $0.015/customer..... That's such a huge investment eh. Can't possibly payoff. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:43:00 - [22] BitTorrent for the patch in Australia runs at 0.001 kb/s. As it downloads more and more people will try to download it off me. Which will stop me from being able to work for the next 100-600 hours.... Seems like the best option eh. $0.015/customer..... That's such a huge investment eh. Can't possibly payoff. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:58:00 - [23] Quote: I hope you don't expect to get 56k/sec here in the US dude. 56 kilo BITS / sec (NOT Bytes) Which is really 48kb/s, which is really actually more like 36kb/s Best you can expect from 56k is 2kbytes/sec (some will say more but they don't understand modem compression). So when I'm getting 0.001 kbytes/sec .... and WAS getting 2 kbytes/sec before the harddrive on the FTP crashed it kinda makes me wonder how CCP can expect to deploy such a bit upgrade when they can't even get a decent FTP server with half-decent harddrives. They could be setup on US servers with ultra cheap bandwidth (compared with the ones they are using) with great hardware and many backbone links, within an hour or so. Yet they choose to let down their customers. Right now every download location is saturated to capacity, because 2 of them have crashed or are inexcessable. $0.015/customer..... soooooooo expensive eh.... $700 customers just aren't worth spending any more than 1ó on. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 06:58:00 - [24] Quote: I hope you don't expect to get 56k/sec here in the US dude. 56 kilo BITS / sec (NOT Bytes) Which is really 48kb/s, which is really actually more like 36kb/s Best you can expect from 56k is 2kbytes/sec (some will say more but they don't understand modem compression). So when I'm getting 0.001 kbytes/sec .... and WAS getting 2 kbytes/sec before the harddrive on the FTP crashed it kinda makes me wonder how CCP can expect to deploy such a bit upgrade when they can't even get a decent FTP server with half-decent harddrives. They could be setup on US servers with ultra cheap bandwidth (compared with the ones they are using) with great hardware and many backbone links, within an hour or so. Yet they choose to let down their customers. Right now every download location is saturated to capacity, because 2 of them have crashed or are inexcessable. $0.015/customer..... soooooooo expensive eh.... $700 customers just aren't worth spending any more than 1ó on. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:03:00 - [25] Quote: I gave him an alternative free download resume program link. Thanx very much for that, nice no spyware downloader. However because the ONLY half-decent HTTP site (UK) is at capacity it's currently going to take 150 hours to download. I can connect for 30 seconds here and there before the UK server has a fart and drops the connection.... again.... $0.015/customer..... How cheap is CCP eh? Rather use your users bandwidth then spend a few bucks on a real server and leave a bunch of your users out in the cold. Shame. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:03:00 - [26] Quote: I gave him an alternative free download resume program link. Thanx very much for that, nice no spyware downloader. However because the ONLY half-decent HTTP site (UK) is at capacity it's currently going to take 150 hours to download. I can connect for 30 seconds here and there before the UK server has a fart and drops the connection.... again.... $0.015/customer..... How cheap is CCP eh? Rather use your users bandwidth then spend a few bucks on a real server and leave a bunch of your users out in the cold. Shame. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:06:00 - [27] Quote: BIT AND BYTES ARE THE SAME DAMN THING There are 8 bits in a byte..... Who's the fool now? 1MBit/s is "about" 333 Gig per month. I'm on dialup for the short-term because of a failure.... Not by choice. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:06:00 - [28] Quote: BIT AND BYTES ARE THE SAME DAMN THING There are 8 bits in a byte..... Who's the fool now? 1MBit/s is "about" 333 Gig per month. I'm on dialup for the short-term because of a failure.... Not by choice. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:09:00 - [29] Quote: Even if the speed drops to 4k/s for you... What about 0.001k/s? Is that still acceptable? Is that CCP providing a quality service? Is that what we pay for? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:09:00 - [30] Quote: Even if the speed drops to 4k/s for you... What about 0.001k/s? Is that still acceptable? Is that CCP providing a quality service? Is that what we pay for? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:13:00 - [31] Quote: it was a joke....DUHHHHHH riiiiiighhhhht.... Seen u'r sig now..... if it wasn't a joke then u really should do the certificates again. Tho guess those MS certs are pretty damn easy. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:13:00 - [32] Quote: it was a joke....DUHHHHHH riiiiiighhhhht.... Seen u'r sig now..... if it wasn't a joke then u really should do the certificates again. Tho guess those MS certs are pretty damn easy. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:39:00 - [33] Edited by: MrYellow on 24/11/2004 07:47:23 Edited by: MrYellow on 24/11/2004 07:43:18 Quote: Minimum Configuration Windows 98 or Windows 2000 / XP DirectX 9.0 Pentium« III 600 or better 256 MB RAM 32 MB GeForce, RADEON 7200 or better 56 Kbps Internet Connection 1 GB of hard drive space That means they have to provide a download solution for 56k. Right now there is none, because the servers they provided have mostly all crashed. The remaining servers are either at the north pole, or on over-saturated links. Over-saturated links? What could that mean..... hmmm.... maybe that means there are 100Mbit of people trying to download who are having a very poor experience, with disconnections, slow speeds and a general inability to get the files. For every person that complains there are many more in the same situation. And yet more again in a slightly better yet not much better situation. Free upgrade? eh??? It's an ASP, Application Service Provider. You pay for time on the system, not a license to use the software whenever, there is no fee for the upgrade because that's not the business model... Doesn't mean it's free! :-D Also for those who haven't been listing and keep suggesting I get boardband, I have boardband, but it's failing atm, thus I'm on dialup. Do you know what a chargeback is? That's where I get a form from the bank, fill it out, and because CCP didn't deliever I get all the money I've ever paid to CCP back. They loose the money and also get charged a fee, if they do too many chargebacks they may also get a fine. I can wait 600 hours for this to download. or. I can give up and chargeback along with all the others having the same problem. or. CCP can provide the service as they should and get the additional capacity they require to provide this service. CCP make enough money to pay a $0.015 per customer to provide a decent service. Please.... No more "I got it fine on BitTorrent, my connection is great!!!".... that's nice.... However the issue is CCP not providing download mirrors, not your connection, and not BitTorrent as it's not a solution that's working for me here in Australia on a 56k. CCP have you noticed me get more and more angry? This is what happens when you leave customers out in the cold. Fix it! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:39:00 - [34] Edited by: MrYellow on 24/11/2004 07:47:23 Edited by: MrYellow on 24/11/2004 07:43:18 Quote: Minimum Configuration Windows 98 or Windows 2000 / XP DirectX 9.0 Pentium« III 600 or better 256 MB RAM 32 MB GeForce, RADEON 7200 or better 56 Kbps Internet Connection 1 GB of hard drive space That means they have to provide a download solution for 56k. Right now there is none, because the servers they provided have mostly all crashed. The remaining servers are either at the north pole, or on over-saturated links. Over-saturated links? What could that mean..... hmmm.... maybe that means there are 100Mbit of people trying to download who are having a very poor experience, with disconnections, slow speeds and a general inability to get the files. For every person that complains there are many more in the same situation. And yet more again in a slightly better yet not much better situation. Free upgrade? eh??? It's an ASP, Application Service Provider. You pay for time on the system, not a license to use the software whenever, there is no fee for the upgrade because that's not the business model... Doesn't mean it's free! :-D Also for those who haven't been listing and keep suggesting I get boardband, I have boardband, but it's failing atm, thus I'm on dialup. Do you know what a chargeback is? That's where I get a form from the bank, fill it out, and because CCP didn't deliever I get all the money I've ever paid to CCP back. They loose the money and also get charged a fee, if they do too many chargebacks they may also get a fine. I can wait 600 hours for this to download. or. I can give up and chargeback along with all the others having the same problem. or. CCP can provide the service as they should and get the additional capacity they require to provide this service. CCP make enough money to pay a $0.015 per customer to provide a decent service. Please.... No more "I got it fine on BitTorrent, my connection is great!!!".... that's nice.... However the issue is CCP not providing download mirrors, not your connection, and not BitTorrent as it's not a solution that's working for me here in Australia on a 56k. CCP have you noticed me get more and more angry? This is what happens when you leave customers out in the cold. Fix it! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:48:00 - [35] Yup BitTorrent was their solution.... The person planning this part of the deployment, if there was such a person.... Said.... "Stuff it, I'm not getting decent servers to provide a quality service, the customers can leech of each other, who cares, we don't need to provide no links, just give them a few hours of download in the morning then they can all get it off each other".... However.... BitTorrent isn't a solution that will work for everyone.... So what do the other do? How much CCP helps them by spending a very small amount of money on decent bandwidth and servers for a short period of time. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 07:48:00 - [36] Yup BitTorrent was their solution.... The person planning this part of the deployment, if there was such a person.... Said.... "Stuff it, I'm not getting decent servers to provide a quality service, the customers can leech of each other, who cares, we don't need to provide no links, just give them a few hours of download in the morning then they can all get it off each other".... However.... BitTorrent isn't a solution that will work for everyone.... So what do the other do? How much CCP helps them by spending a very small amount of money on decent bandwidth and servers for a short period of time. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 08:10:00 - [37] I'm assuming you don't know how to read. I get 0.001k/s with bittorrent in Australia. If I throttle the upload it will be even less. The first time I tried to resume it overwrote 80meg. Since tested it again and yes it worked, but at 0.001k/s it's.... NOT A SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK FOR ME. Great, it worked for you... great... feel so happy for you. In the meantime... How bout CCP live up to THEIR responsibility and provide a working unsaturated download link. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 08:10:00 - [38] I'm assuming you don't know how to read. I get 0.001k/s with bittorrent in Australia. If I throttle the upload it will be even less. The first time I tried to resume it overwrote 80meg. Since tested it again and yes it worked, but at 0.001k/s it's.... NOT A SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK FOR ME. Great, it worked for you... great... feel so happy for you. In the meantime... How bout CCP live up to THEIR responsibility and provide a working unsaturated download link. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 08:52:00 - [39] BitTorrent seems to work okish for the 500 meg file, however the 100meg patch it runs at 0.001k/s The problems I've experienced have nothing to do with ISP, my BitTorrent setup, or anything else suggested. It's simply that the patch is less common on the network compared to the full client. Thus a failure in deployment planning by CCP. They need to provide, HTTP, FTP and BitTorrent. Shutting down all the FTP servers and simpy saying... "Get it from BitTorrent or Chargeback" isn't what I'd call good customer service. Thanx for the thought with the download.... but just demostrates my point, if you had to try to help distribute it, then CCP wasn't doing a good enough job were they. I offered to help them, was even willing to use some of my servers if they didn't want to setup their own, had my host put together an idea of a deal that would have worked for them. However they ignored the need. I simply can't believe they wouldn't spend such a tiny amount of money on distribution. They probably pay 100x more for the bandwidth in UK that they are currently using. In the end CCP made a choice.... "Screw the users, they suck anyway". -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 08:52:00 - [40] BitTorrent seems to work okish for the 500 meg file, however the 100meg patch it runs at 0.001k/s The problems I've experienced have nothing to do with ISP, my BitTorrent setup, or anything else suggested. It's simply that the patch is less common on the network compared to the full client. Thus a failure in deployment planning by CCP. They need to provide, HTTP, FTP and BitTorrent. Shutting down all the FTP servers and simpy saying... "Get it from BitTorrent or Chargeback" isn't what I'd call good customer service. Thanx for the thought with the download.... but just demostrates my point, if you had to try to help distribute it, then CCP wasn't doing a good enough job were they. I offered to help them, was even willing to use some of my servers if they didn't want to setup their own, had my host put together an idea of a deal that would have worked for them. However they ignored the need. I simply can't believe they wouldn't spend such a tiny amount of money on distribution. They probably pay 100x more for the bandwidth in UK that they are currently using. In the end CCP made a choice.... "Screw the users, they suck anyway". -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:25:00 - [41] (50,000 x 100) x 1.2* = 6,000,000 meg = 5859 gig Now lets say 60% of people get it via BitTorrent (probably more as has been indicated). 5859 x 0.4* = 2344 gig Now lets say 20% of them all want to download it during a peak period today. 0.2* x 2344 = 469 gig 469 / (60mins x 60 secs) = 0.13 gig/sec = 1116 MBit/s Reduce that by 40% as you don't actually need them all to be going at their max speed and should be able to maintain connections easily. 0.6* x 1116 = 669 MBit/s If that was all bought from the same company it would probably be under $40/MBit/month. 669 x 40* = $26,760 For that capacity for a whole month, Not Bad! Now I would go further but it all depends on how the bandwidth provider wanted to quote you. However you can see that capacity would only be needed for 4-6 hours max and the rest of the time it would be below 100MBit. So you'd have to think that in the end it would only cost around $10,000 for a whole month of quality hosting on links that can handle the load. Now here is the easy part.... and I'll even reduce the subscribers count to take into account all the ppl that don't really pay or exist or whatever.... 40,000 x $20 = $800,000 $10,000/$800,000 = 0.0125 So..... For around 1% of last months income they could have provided decent download servers. Why not? Do customers matter so little? Update: I'm now downloading at 0.5k/s from UK, YaY!!! * assumptions -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:25:00 - [42] (50,000 x 100) x 1.2* = 6,000,000 meg = 5859 gig Now lets say 60% of people get it via BitTorrent (probably more as has been indicated). 5859 x 0.4* = 2344 gig Now lets say 20% of them all want to download it during a peak period today. 0.2* x 2344 = 469 gig 469 / (60mins x 60 secs) = 0.13 gig/sec = 1116 MBit/s Reduce that by 40% as you don't actually need them all to be going at their max speed and should be able to maintain connections easily. 0.6* x 1116 = 669 MBit/s If that was all bought from the same company it would probably be under $40/MBit/month. 669 x 40* = $26,760 For that capacity for a whole month, Not Bad! Now I would go further but it all depends on how the bandwidth provider wanted to quote you. However you can see that capacity would only be needed for 4-6 hours max and the rest of the time it would be below 100MBit. So you'd have to think that in the end it would only cost around $10,000 for a whole month of quality hosting on links that can handle the load. Now here is the easy part.... and I'll even reduce the subscribers count to take into account all the ppl that don't really pay or exist or whatever.... 40,000 x $20 = $800,000 $10,000/$800,000 = 0.0125 So..... For around 1% of last months income they could have provided decent download servers. Why not? Do customers matter so little? Update: I'm now downloading at 0.5k/s from UK, YaY!!! * assumptions -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:34:00 - [43] Quote: been given the option to get the full client instead of the patch, WHICH BY THE WAY is the recommended path since the patch has been giving people certain problems Great so once I get this it isn't going to work.... grreeeeaaaat! Quote: If you have your own servers, you could have just used wget to drop the file into an FTP directory at high bandwidth speeds (like I did) and then downloaded it directly to your machine.... Yup tried that, but once the FTP servers all died and people flocked over to the UK HTTP server, the capacity was maxed and I couldn't even get above a few k to a 100MBit BGP route in the US which is connected to several major backbones. Also the connection would die every 30 seconds or so as the UK server dropped connections. Believe me, I thought of this. Sorry if I'm on 56k.... surely I'm not the only one.... It's not my fault... beyond my control.... But just because you're not in my situation doesn't make me stupid, doesn't mean I'm cheap and have to fork out, doesn't mean I don't know any better, doesn't mean I'm a whinger..... Just means I'm left out in the cold with no server to download from at any speed above 0.5k/s -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:34:00 - [44] Quote: been given the option to get the full client instead of the patch, WHICH BY THE WAY is the recommended path since the patch has been giving people certain problems Great so once I get this it isn't going to work.... grreeeeaaaat! Quote: If you have your own servers, you could have just used wget to drop the file into an FTP directory at high bandwidth speeds (like I did) and then downloaded it directly to your machine.... Yup tried that, but once the FTP servers all died and people flocked over to the UK HTTP server, the capacity was maxed and I couldn't even get above a few k to a 100MBit BGP route in the US which is connected to several major backbones. Also the connection would die every 30 seconds or so as the UK server dropped connections. Believe me, I thought of this. Sorry if I'm on 56k.... surely I'm not the only one.... It's not my fault... beyond my control.... But just because you're not in my situation doesn't make me stupid, doesn't mean I'm cheap and have to fork out, doesn't mean I don't know any better, doesn't mean I'm a whinger..... Just means I'm left out in the cold with no server to download from at any speed above 0.5k/s -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:43:00 - [45] Quote: So, because you hate that the community enjoys helping one another by supplying files, and because you hate that CCP wants to help lower costs by providing and showing people how to use a more cost and bandwidth efficient alternative... well I have one thing to say. 0.001 k/s .... Not anything to do with community..... just with having my computer do something other than download of BitTorrent for the next 3 months. Quote: You arent even good at selling bandwidth. Your numbers are wrong. Yup I know.... They were just to show the people that go "UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY" that really it isn't very expensive in the grand sceme of things. Quote: Uh, why did the patch have over 3 times more seeds and peers than the full client when I checked in the morning before I left for work? The ratio was even larger last night before I went to sleep. Don't know... Maybe it's just Australia.... 0.001 k/s Just to let you know, I've just done another test, and the UK HTTP server I tried earlier has got a lot better, however it is still average at about 25k/s to the US. Also they've changed around the mirrors a bit to try and help. Guess someone is listing.... but hey US bandwidth is soooooo cheap... Why do all these crappy UK mirrors. You can call me what you like.... I just want a working download link.... If that makes me the worst person in the world in your eyes..... I don't care :-P -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:43:00 - [46] Quote: So, because you hate that the community enjoys helping one another by supplying files, and because you hate that CCP wants to help lower costs by providing and showing people how to use a more cost and bandwidth efficient alternative... well I have one thing to say. 0.001 k/s .... Not anything to do with community..... just with having my computer do something other than download of BitTorrent for the next 3 months. Quote: You arent even good at selling bandwidth. Your numbers are wrong. Yup I know.... They were just to show the people that go "UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY" that really it isn't very expensive in the grand sceme of things. Quote: Uh, why did the patch have over 3 times more seeds and peers than the full client when I checked in the morning before I left for work? The ratio was even larger last night before I went to sleep. Don't know... Maybe it's just Australia.... 0.001 k/s Just to let you know, I've just done another test, and the UK HTTP server I tried earlier has got a lot better, however it is still average at about 25k/s to the US. Also they've changed around the mirrors a bit to try and help. Guess someone is listing.... but hey US bandwidth is soooooo cheap... Why do all these crappy UK mirrors. You can call me what you like.... I just want a working download link.... If that makes me the worst person in the world in your eyes..... I don't care :-P -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:47:00 - [47] Quote: and I just pulled a copy down at 15Mb Keyword being "Just"..... Hours ago when I first tried pulling it over to the US the UK mirror was being hammered.... Now it's a lot better and there are 2 different UK mirrors. However I'm committed to this 0.5k/s download now... Not bout to throw away the time I've invested there to try and resume off an FTP in the US. If CCP had provided a couple of FTP mirrors in their planning...... Wouldn't have been an issue, we'd all be finished by now. Sooooo cheap.... Soooo much benefit..... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:47:00 - [48] Quote: and I just pulled a copy down at 15Mb Keyword being "Just"..... Hours ago when I first tried pulling it over to the US the UK mirror was being hammered.... Now it's a lot better and there are 2 different UK mirrors. However I'm committed to this 0.5k/s download now... Not bout to throw away the time I've invested there to try and resume off an FTP in the US. If CCP had provided a couple of FTP mirrors in their planning...... Wouldn't have been an issue, we'd all be finished by now. Sooooo cheap.... Soooo much benefit..... -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:50:00 - [49] Anyone else wanna call me an *****? ? *? **head? Find it funny how you think my download issue is your chance to get personal. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 09:50:00 - [50] Anyone else wanna call me an *****? ? *? **head? Find it funny how you think my download issue is your chance to get personal. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:04:00 - [51] Yup it has killed the download a bunch of times. I've cached everything and turned all the images off tho so that helps. I was just hoping that CCP would actually go setup another server which worked. FTP not HTTP.... but hey.... I do have the downloader resuming on HTTP now, never liked these programs but this one is ok. Says I have another 130 hours to go. So could probably use another CCP actually working FTP mirror, that isn't at the north pole... but hey.... They have provided another UK one and stopped at that..... So I figure they wanna do it on the cheap and don't really want to help too much.... So screw it... I don't care anymore. And yeah, no need to get rude, I really couldn't give a **** anymore.... Spent all day trying to get some action from CCP, noticed some changes to the download page.... Guess that's as much effort they are ready to expend. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:04:00 - [52] Yup it has killed the download a bunch of times. I've cached everything and turned all the images off tho so that helps. I was just hoping that CCP would actually go setup another server which worked. FTP not HTTP.... but hey.... I do have the downloader resuming on HTTP now, never liked these programs but this one is ok. Says I have another 130 hours to go. So could probably use another CCP actually working FTP mirror, that isn't at the north pole... but hey.... They have provided another UK one and stopped at that..... So I figure they wanna do it on the cheap and don't really want to help too much.... So screw it... I don't care anymore. And yeah, no need to get rude, I really couldn't give a **** anymore.... Spent all day trying to get some action from CCP, noticed some changes to the download page.... Guess that's as much effort they are ready to expend. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:08:00 - [53] oh my now everyone else is angry at waiting :-D Quote: You would rather slow down EVERYTHING not just because of bandwidth bottlenecks by the CCP rush on their servers, but CPU's as well? Why not distribute the CPU requirement for file hosting/downloading across all of your users? I have never at any stage suggested the setup more servers on the same ****ty pipe. I have suggested they setup servers on decent pipes in the US for cheap. As for not reading the manual. For the full client I had no trouble with BitTorrent apart from that it was going to take 10 days and overwrote a 80meg file on me. When it came to the patch version, 0.0 k/s upload, 0.001 k/s download. No matter what I changed. So...... must be all your fault :-P haha -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:08:00 - [54] oh my now everyone else is angry at waiting :-D Quote: You would rather slow down EVERYTHING not just because of bandwidth bottlenecks by the CCP rush on their servers, but CPU's as well? Why not distribute the CPU requirement for file hosting/downloading across all of your users? I have never at any stage suggested the setup more servers on the same ****ty pipe. I have suggested they setup servers on decent pipes in the US for cheap. As for not reading the manual. For the full client I had no trouble with BitTorrent apart from that it was going to take 10 days and overwrote a 80meg file on me. When it came to the patch version, 0.0 k/s upload, 0.001 k/s download. No matter what I changed. So...... must be all your fault :-P haha -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:15:00 - [55] Quote: You do realize my friend, that trying to explain this to him is like explaining a playboy model to a eunuch? I understand completely the idea of using BitTorrent to save a corporation money. Seems great... lets bake them cookies and hold hands singing com-bia-ah my lord com- bia-ah or however it goes. Thing you seem to want to kill me for is this.... BitTorrent wasn't a good solution for MY situation... was for you? great... awesome... I'm so happy..... It wasn't for me.... ok with u? Is it ok for me to not had a good experience downloading the patch thru BitTorrent? Or should I write to you for approval to have a bad experience with it? So.... Seeing as I pay CCP to provide me with a service....... I figured maybe they could provide me with that service.... funny eh.... such a strange concept :-) Everyone having fun waiting to use their new clients? :-) I'm so glad to hear u got it at 50000 k/s .... So glad to head BitTorrent worked for you.... And really really glad to hear that you were able to do handstands at the same time. I wasn't.... but hey.... that's not CCP's fault.... afterall they did provide 2 FTP servers that lasted a couple of hours. yay... so cool. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:15:00 - [56] Quote: You do realize my friend, that trying to explain this to him is like explaining a playboy model to a eunuch? I understand completely the idea of using BitTorrent to save a corporation money. Seems great... lets bake them cookies and hold hands singing com-bia-ah my lord com- bia-ah or however it goes. Thing you seem to want to kill me for is this.... BitTorrent wasn't a good solution for MY situation... was for you? great... awesome... I'm so happy..... It wasn't for me.... ok with u? Is it ok for me to not had a good experience downloading the patch thru BitTorrent? Or should I write to you for approval to have a bad experience with it? So.... Seeing as I pay CCP to provide me with a service....... I figured maybe they could provide me with that service.... funny eh.... such a strange concept :-) Everyone having fun waiting to use their new clients? :-) I'm so glad to hear u got it at 50000 k/s .... So glad to head BitTorrent worked for you.... And really really glad to hear that you were able to do handstands at the same time. I wasn't.... but hey.... that's not CCP's fault.... afterall they did provide 2 FTP servers that lasted a couple of hours. yay... so cool. -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:17:00 - [57] Good news is that now everyone has gone to bed I'm getting 2k/s and it'll only take another 70 hours. :-D Wanna whip me and call me names for finally getting max BW outta my 56k? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:17:00 - [58] Good news is that now everyone has gone to bed I'm getting 2k/s and it'll only take another 70 hours. :-D Wanna whip me and call me names for finally getting max BW outta my 56k? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:21:00 - [59] Quote: Right. Because temporary server rental in a foriegn country makes a ton of sense when more than 60% of your bandwidth can be handled through bittorrent. Well it is only like 100x cheaper and everyone knows the US has no decent BW. Quote: Case in point of you not reading the manual, the speed in which you were getting it. The 80 megs were overwridden because those 80 megs were corrupted (most likley from when you halted the transfer, and thus those bits were corrupted, as it downloads sections of the file rather than from front to back). Great so it deleted 80 meg...... regardless of why.... That's hours and hours and hours down the drain. Quote: Then you need to change your firewall/router settings to allow bittorrent to connect outbound and inbound for not just the program, but the outgoing reporting port. That too, is in the manual. It was working fine, no firewall issues, just nowhere decent that it would connect me to. Quote: Why am I still talking to you about this? Not sure.... Maybe cause it wasn't a good migration to the new version and u'r left with nothing else to do after downloading at 50000 k/s then coming to tell me how cool it is that u were able to? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:21:00 - [60] Quote: Right. Because temporary server rental in a foriegn country makes a ton of sense when more than 60% of your bandwidth can be handled through bittorrent. Well it is only like 100x cheaper and everyone knows the US has no decent BW. Quote: Case in point of you not reading the manual, the speed in which you were getting it. The 80 megs were overwridden because those 80 megs were corrupted (most likley from when you halted the transfer, and thus those bits were corrupted, as it downloads sections of the file rather than from front to back). Great so it deleted 80 meg...... regardless of why.... That's hours and hours and hours down the drain. Quote: Then you need to change your firewall/router settings to allow bittorrent to connect outbound and inbound for not just the program, but the outgoing reporting port. That too, is in the manual. It was working fine, no firewall issues, just nowhere decent that it would connect me to. Quote: Why am I still talking to you about this? Not sure.... Maybe cause it wasn't a good migration to the new version and u'r left with nothing else to do after downloading at 50000 k/s then coming to tell me how cool it is that u were able to? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:23:00 - [61] Hey I'll be the first to admit, I can be a right bastard :-) but doesn't mean I don't have a point.... Just because BitTorrent worked for most ppl out there.... Doesn't mean CCP shouldn't have provided FTP download links.... I'd actually be able to resume one of these 50 meg imcomplete files I have here eh :-) but that would be a bad thing right? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 10:23:00 - [62] Hey I'll be the first to admit, I can be a right bastard :-) but doesn't mean I don't have a point.... Just because BitTorrent worked for most ppl out there.... Doesn't mean CCP shouldn't have provided FTP download links.... I'd actually be able to resume one of these 50 meg imcomplete files I have here eh :-) but that would be a bad thing right? -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 11:42:00 - [63] I'm 1/3rd of the way through on one of the UK HTTP mirrors now so not bout to switch, now everyone is in bed it's actually has enought bandwidth to serve a 56k :-) BitTorrent didn't work for me on the patch file, the full client seemed fine but couldn't get over 0.001k/s for the patch version. (Which I hear isn't actually going to work anyway, so fun). It's great to see everyone stepping up with mirrors, however all these people using their University, sending their ISP backwards, or dipping into their own pockets says it all to me. CCP expected individual users to pay for distribution as part of their plan and as such made sure there wasn't enough bandwidth provided by them to spur others into distributing it for them. Community is great and all, but CCP is a commercial entity. They really should pay their own costs... That's what we pay them for. Anyway, I hope to see you all *****ing here tomorrow bout the catastrophic bugs while I'm still downloading a few weeks from now :-D -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.24 11:42:00 - [64] I'm 1/3rd of the way through on one of the UK HTTP mirrors now so not bout to switch, now everyone is in bed it's actually has enought bandwidth to serve a 56k :-) BitTorrent didn't work for me on the patch file, the full client seemed fine but couldn't get over 0.001k/s for the patch version. (Which I hear isn't actually going to work anyway, so fun). It's great to see everyone stepping up with mirrors, however all these people using their University, sending their ISP backwards, or dipping into their own pockets says it all to me. CCP expected individual users to pay for distribution as part of their plan and as such made sure there wasn't enough bandwidth provided by them to spur others into distributing it for them. Community is great and all, but CCP is a commercial entity. They really should pay their own costs... That's what we pay them for. Anyway, I hope to see you all *****ing here tomorrow bout the catastrophic bugs while I'm still downloading a few weeks from now :-D -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:10:00 - [65] So today there are 101 threads about the lack of mirrors, and a new mirror provider. I guess the people that got it at 10412241027417 k/s thru BitTorrent were right, I'm the only one in the world that had problems. pfft! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:10:00 - [66] So today there are 101 threads about the lack of mirrors, and a new mirror provider. I guess the people that got it at 10412241027417 k/s thru BitTorrent were right, I'm the only one in the world that had problems. pfft! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:21:00 - [67] oh my, and the patch is hosted on the same pipe as the game! lol! So you think I was the fool.... Well guess what.... The project manager for this can't possibly have an IQ over 20. You'll all be waiting days now for the people who are still downloading.... Oh that's right, I'm the only one! hahahaha! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:21:00 - [68] oh my, and the patch is hosted on the same pipe as the game! lol! So you think I was the fool.... Well guess what.... The project manager for this can't possibly have an IQ over 20. You'll all be waiting days now for the people who are still downloading.... Oh that's right, I'm the only one! hahahaha! -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:45:00 - [69] Hey, relax, don't blame me for you not being able to get on the server.... Afterall, I'm full of it and have no idea what I'm talking about! :-D -Ben
MrYellow	Posted - 2004.11.25 03:45:00 - [70] Hey, relax, don't blame me for you not being able to get on the server.... Afterall, I'm full of it and have no idea what I'm talking about! :-D -Ben

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.