Here's my problem, I'll start to download a file from some bot, and it will start up going really fast like 400-500k/s, then it will just die....Its like my internet connection is shutting down, after this happens nothing revives it, not even repairing the connection, I can no longer use xfire, browse, anything, I have to restart my computer, then everything is back to normal, this seems to only happen on bots where my download rate is really high.....is there anyway to fix this? or cap the speed to like 200k? This problem is 100% repeatable, and has been happening over like a 6 months period, diff installs of XPSP2 etc.

desperately need any advice

thanks

This is a common issue with people who use mIRC for "downloading". mIRC is not a file sharing program and as such it doesn't cater for the needs of those who wish to use it as such. Do note I'm not casting assumptions on what you're downloading, it doesn't really matter. The client and the DCC protocol are not made for that kind of heavy usage.

Nevertheless, it sounds more like your ISP has a cap on your speeds. As far as mIRC's options are concerned, there are not any "download cap speed" options.

Regards,

Originally Posted By: Mentality

The client and the DCC protocol are not made for that kind of heavy usage.

That's a load of bs. It may not have been designed for it, of course not, it's an IRC client, it handles it just fine nonetheless.

Newb69
I had a linksys modem once that would do the same thing, regardless of what program I was using, if I downloaded too fast, the link on my side of the modem would be broken and I would have to restart the modem. Unfortunately there was no firmware fix for the modem and I had to replace it. If you have to do the same to fix your connection, then it's worth a google search of your modem brand and model to see if others are experiencing the same. Also, you may want to check if there are any driver updates for your network adapter, this actually sounds like it may be your problem.

That's not a load of bs, clearly you know nothing about the DCC protocol, the redundant ACKs it sends, its non-existent support for large packet sizes which increase throughput on dedicated file sharing/transfer protocols, or the primitive nature of the DCC resume mechanism within mIRC. Not to mention the absence of any integrity check (beyond TCP's own, which is weak and is not sufficient to guarantee integrity of large files).

mIRC and DCC may or may not have any specific effect that another file transfer protocol wouldn't, there's no way for anyone here to know that with the information we've got, but if you think DCC is anything resembling a decent dedicated file transfer protocol you are very much mistaken.

And it's entirely possible as Mentality said that the ISP are identifying the use of DCC and capping it, as many ISPs do for file transfers. Again, there are many dedicated file transfer protocols which support protocol obfuscation which prevents the easy identification of a protocol and prevents it from being capped by an ISP.

I've been using DCC heavily for about 10 years and have had no more problems with it than any P2P apps I've used. In fact, I can't recall any major issues with it whatsoever. An occasional corrupt file, but that happens with any protocol. As I said, it may not have been designed for heavy usage and large files, and may not even be the best protocol for the job, but it works just fine.

~ Edit ~

And I know plenty enough about the DCC protocol.

...then you just agreed with my statement. Yes, it can work for a lot of people. I'm not saying that's the sole cause of the problem, merely stating a fact. It's not "bs".



That statement itself infers DCC does have a problem of some description, at least some of the time - and yet you argue it works "just fine"? Do note, one of the biggest reasons for people to post on the support boards is for help with DCC issues - so clearly it doesn't work "just fine" for everyone

Regards,

True, nothing works "just fine" for everyone (especially newbs), and the DCC protocol is not perfect (noone claimed it was), and your statement may not have been complete bs (though partially still) .. I will concede those.