Facebook Twitter gPlus rss LinkedIn
  • Board index
  • FAQ
  • Register
  • Login
  • BACK TO HUBLIST
FORUM.DCHUBLIST.ORG
Direct Connect hublist support board. http://dchublist.org

ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

Moderator: Demona

Post a reply
19 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
  • Reply with quote

ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Derek » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:20 pm

Test was on 800 - 1800 users. Same host, same machine.
Adch++ is a win win - bloom to reduce traffic.
Lower overall CPU usage.
I did end this test slightly earlier that planned thus graph for the LUADCH (right side) is a bit shorter, but you get the point.
Although ADCH++ outperforms LUADCH when it comes to CPU/Bandwith important for large hubs, LUADCH is still a nice soft with settable TLS version, blocking 0 share users and many other options that ADCH++ just doesn't have.
Also i need to mention i tested x64bit ADCH++ vs 32bit win LUADCH.
Short test on LUADCH x64 linux build - showed even more cpu usage vs 32bit somehow thus i'm calling is irrelevant atm.

CPU usage - on the left is adchpp - right side luadch:
cpu.PNG
cpu.PNG (47.55 KiB) Viewed 36739 times

Bandwith usage - left - ADCHPP right LUADCH:
bandwith.PNG
bandwith.PNG (47.56 KiB) Viewed 36739 times
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:44 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Delion » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:06 pm

Running strict TLS 1.3 should be more reliable, not mixed adc\adcs.

I noticed that even old pre-ADC 1.0 clients were able to enter luadch hub. This is not good in any way.
Delion
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Derek » Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:32 am

For testing purposes both adc and tls connections were allowed on both hub softs. This would allow for more users. On TLS strict we will lose all old clients. I was hoping we gonna get 3500+ users with fl add- but looks we gonna be topping on 2000 on weekends and 1800 during weekdays.So not too much to stress stest with. I was able to build x64 bit LUADCH on linux. I had a crash within 10 minutes of startup. No error message - just shutdown. Also had adchpp crash once. After running 30 days. Gona stick to adchpp for now.

PS.
I was about to do strict tls 1.3 test today so i was redirecting all traffic to tls address with kp. Somehow i lost 500 users 158156 - so i stopped testing. I'm gonna have to figure out wtf happened. I did enter correct addresses and all.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:44 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Delion » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:48 am

redirecting all traffic to tls address with kp

Oh, please, do not play with those keyprints at all. They dont provide much more security. That's just another way to lose users in case of keyprint change (and it will change one day for sure).

Somehow i lost 500 users

That's totally OK, but you still didnt get the point. The point is: DC is overwhelmed by ancient clients. And those clients like Flylink (and that search flood bug is actually coming from StrongDC++ code) will instantly flood your hub. That's probably why luadch just stopped working.

The only sane way to run ADC(s) hub is a strict TLS 1.3 mode. That's the way to avoid old bugged clients, maintain downloads compatibility, save CPU and make ADC safe and popular.

At least you should try.
Delion
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Admin » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:05 am

Well my cetrs expire every 10 years so do kp. Not a big deal - kp is there for security without them its a piece of cake to bypass tls.
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 11:56 am
Location: OCALA FL USA
  • Private message
  • Website

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Delion » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:45 pm

without them its a piece of cake to bypass tls

But then what's the real need in bypassing hub TLS connection with an open non-TLS entrance? :D
Delion
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Derek » Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:39 pm

Because once you set your client correctly - you gonna block anything non tls on your side - Up And down - no matter what other users have. So if you are connected with kp - noone can break this. Its safe - period. Open non tls port - doesnt matter at all. You cant download/upload from me if your client doesn't encript.So its up to users to setup clients the way they like.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:44 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Delion » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:13 pm

It is all right but still makes no sense if I am a happy StrongDC++ (etc etc etc) user once entered your hub (:

In that case, I'm nothing more than just a bot (no transfers possible) for you, and you are just a bot for me.

IMHO we should avoid that situation.
Delion
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Derek » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:37 am

Correct. But strong can still download and upload fine to users without strict tls setups in clients (majority of Russians atm.). Thus im gonna keep it open for all. Its not a threat to me - or any other client who knows how to setup a secure client. Once people are going to notice that some ISP can sniff into what are they uploading/downloading and cut theirs services off - like they do in USA - maybe they will start to pay attention to details.
Not to mention im paying for a redirect of NMDC users. Why would i pay for something i reject? Talking waste of money hahahah
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:44 pm
  • Private message

  • Reply with quote

Re: ADCH++ vs LUADCH performance test.

by Delion » Sat Oct 24, 2020 11:03 am

Hah. Then tell me, what DC client should I use to have access to all your hub users?

Old one? No modern TLS. Newer one? No connects to older ones.

A hub should unite users, not separate.
Delion
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:37 pm
  • Private message

Next

Post a reply
19 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2

Return to GOOD READS

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 5 hours

Preset Styles

Select variation:

Main Menu

User Menu

  • FAQ
  • Members
  • Register
  • Login

Login

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Our Team:

ADMIN AKRUK DEREK ESENTIAL
THE CROW DELION CYBERGHOST404
 

HTTPS://DCHUBLIST.ORG
© 2020 MULTIPROTOCOL DC HUBLIST
 
admin@dchublist.org
 

View new posts

  • Re: Hublist autoregistration server on port 2501. by nainarandhawa
  • PY-DCHUB (OphioDcHub) Os independent python. by Admin
  • JDBHUB by Dark BIOS. Java - os independant [Outdated]. by Admin
  • Re: AirDC++ [ Up to date] by Admin
  • 2023 by Admin
  • Re: DSHub 0.5.5 (former Death Squad Hub). [ABADONED] by jassyyy
  • Happy 2023 New Year. by Admin
  • Re: Lets introduce ourselves! by tmatecc
Reset
  • HUBLIST HOME
  • HUB LIST
  • HUB STATS
  • NEW HUBS