Haxe wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 February 2005 04:24, Christian Biere wrote:
> > Luckily, it was still running. Yes, first I didn't get any qhits from
> > it. However, searching for "mp3" gained results from it.
 
> Please note that I was talking about the QHits that my client sends out, 
> i.e. the TX side, not about how many QHits I receive. As you can see on 
> the screenshot, I haven't issued a search that could have lead to 
> receiving QHits.

Ah, sorry I see my mistake now.
 
> 1.
> Why is it an ultrapeer when it's not well connected?

With "well connected" I meant "connected to a sufficiently large
network of peers that share a sufficient amount of files". Maybe
it's connected to many "leechers" or broken/buggy clients. It's
still running and I've verified that it's connected to a good
amount of peers - it could be lying of course.

> > OTOH, there could be a problem with the query routing 
> > tables, of course,
 
> Yes, it could be possible that this UP delivers queries to my host only 
> with keywords that I do NOT have, so that none of the queries matches 
> my share.

Could you connect to the host and tell me the names and SHA1s of some
files you share - start a secondary instance with files extracted
from /dev/zero or /dev/urandom if you like - to check whether that's
really the case?

If you're connected to it, try to search for these:
urn:sha1:B4OZVROOMN4FBJCOTFQ3UU73UYXQQSN7 ghostwhitecrab-0.9.2.tar.bz2
urn:sha1:BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABL bigfile.bz2

-- 
Christian

Attachment: pgpPtoJqxOdO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to