Feature to provide additional download slot to chosen user

I think I remember in old slsk there was possibility to provide a upload slot in upload window to a chosen user. For example you have limited upload slots to 2 and currently 2 users are downloading from you. A friend asks one file from you and queues it. Even your 2 upload slots are used by other users you could provide additional slot to your friend by clicking on username and choosing "force upload" or something like that. Maybe that would be a good feature to add?
Your rating: None
Average: 1 (10 votes)


I like this idea a lot. I have two slots always enabled with a specific amount of bandwidth, and I *always* have people queued up for my files. If a friend on my userlist spots a file they'd like, they have to wait for a slot to open up, and then download at the same speed I allot everyone else.

On the other hand, I do have extra bandwidth I could use for the occasional friends-only download . . . I'd love to have an additional friends-only slot, with the ability to allot extra bandwidth--that is beyond what's allowed for general users--so that a friend of mine could grab one of the files without having to wait or get a small amount of bandwidth because what was intended for two is now being distributed among three.

I'm not asking for the 0 downloads exploit here--as long as the client is coded with a minimum slot/bandwidth requirement for general users, I'm fine with that. I have an enormous list with very rare files and I download almost nothing, I'm really there to upload to others. I'd just like to have a little more control over my uploads so if a friend wants to grab a file, I can allot them an extra slot and amount of bandwidth just for the duration of that download, while leaving the regular uploads untouched.

If asking for the extra bandwidth bit is too distinct to merge into this feature request, I'm happy to post my own separately. I just felt that it didn't make sense, since this user's request is very similar to what I had been wishing for.

I strongly agree. The way it is set up in NS is very nice. The options to let users in your userlist download first and the ability to set up extra slots for those on your list are sorely missed in Qt. I can understand the desire to prevent the 0 upload slot people, but the download priority option in Qt doesn't give you the same benefits when you have a limited number of upload slots.

How about a user group toggle that lets group members' downloads start immediately? The main difference between that and ye olde extra slots setting is that multiple users of each such group would have their files downloaded simultaneously. Sounds like it could be a plus, but I don't know if that's feasible in your case?

That'd be great for a start!--but I still really really need to be able to allot extra bandwidth to those slots. I share a constant amount with people (a reasonable enough rate for music and books, for instance), but I'd like to be able to allow my friends to download with a high rate, and then have my overall upload drop back to normal as soon as their downloads finish. If I set that high rate for everyone, then I have it constantly going--and there are good reasons not to be uploading a ton ALL the time (not least being it's not nice to my neighbors who share cable with me). At the same time, I'd rather my friends' downloads (especially with regard to some of the larger files they have access to that others might not) not take them days because they're now sharing the same smaller amount of bandwidth (not tiny! just not huge either) with random people I don't know.

Basically, I want to be able to reward people for being my friend or having useful things to share. Still, I like to be able to share with the general Soulseek population and enrich that, so I'm not asking for the 0 upload slot loophole. Minimums can come in handy here. :)

Edit for further explanation:
Let's try an example. Say I have 30 kb/s upload allotted to Soulseek. Two slots, so each person's downloading at 15 kb/s. Not bad for mp3s and books--perhaps a little slow, but you can get an album within an hour or two that way, depending on quality/size, and most books will download pretty quickly as they're typically small. Then a friend comes along and queues up a film. Now it's split three ways, with each person getting only 10 kb/s. That's a little slow for the music and books, and incredibly slow for the film (it'll take them hours and hours and hours!). And if a second friend comes along, now they're only getting 7.5 kb/s apiece. You see why I need to be able to allot some extra bandwidth to those friend slots?

If I just increase the overall bandwidth, then I'm uploading a ton all the time (which is bad for the neighborhood, given cable, and I need it for other programs at times). I can't be there to monitor WHEN the other slots are being used, so as to increase it for that period of time (I work a lot, and have to leave Slsk running when I'm not around or no one would ever get anything from me). And without any changes, my friends will be stuck with very slow download rates, which isn't really kind to them. The logical solution is, therefore, to allow extra bandwidth to be allotted to said slots.

Why are you limiting your total upload speed to only 30kbps? Just leave it unlimited.

If everyone did that, and restricted themselves to 1 download at a time, there would be no bottlenecks in the system.

But yes, I'd like to see an additional slot for Userlist (so long as it doesn't take away bandwidth from Privileged Users)

Lol, some of us do actually share on other networks and by other means (if Soulseek's using all the bandwidth, how am I to have some to upload on private torrent sites, where uploading speed really does count in the long run?). Plus I don't know if you caught the *cable* thing--which entails everyone in my neighborhood sharing the same line (really, wouldn't it be rude to hog the upload pipe from my neighbors?). Unlike something that will finish (such as a torrent, which usually winds down at some point once the majority of people have downloaded it), there are almost always uploads in my queue--some of them very large. My bandwidth would be maxed out constantly, and there are other people in this house that would like to be able to make phone calls, Skype, video, etc. So no, that is not a good idea. I could maybe increase it a little (it IS actually higher than 30 kb/s now, but I had it very low for a long time because of monthly bandwidth caps), but unlimited is not an option, not for something that will be constantly transferring. That's why I'd like the extra bandwidth for userlist, because those on my userlist are NOT downloading constantly--it'll finish and go back to the normal speed.

Besides, I see that sort of bandwidth as something one should earn by being a good file-sharer. I meet too many who are all gimme gimme and don't know anything about reading any rules and don't have a CLUE about patience (not to mention the numbers I have to remind to share some files first). (I cut my p2p eyeteeth on Filetopia--taught me a lot about p2p etiquette.) I still share with them--but I see no reason to give them unlimited bandwidth. I'd like my userlist to actually mean something--for someone on it to have faster speed in addition to the jumping queue and increased file access.

And part of it is--I really download almost nothing on Soulseek. If I'm going to sit on there just to share, what reason can you give me for just dumping all my bandwidth at everyone indiscriminately? Personally, it's altruistic enough to share the quantity and quality that I have, given the risks these days. Given that it's my bandwidth being discussed, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't limit general users and give friends (and those who I see with great lists) higher speeds.

Anyway, that's a good point about the privileged users--I'd forgotten about that.

My patience was recently tested by completing an album download of 78mb at 1kbps. It took 61 days as the user only goes online for about an hour a week. I'm actually surprised it finished without his banning me after I messaged him 5 or 6 times the first 2 weeks begging for extra speed.

My bugaboo with slsk is that many users abuse the control Nir has provided. I see users dividing 100kbps total allotted to 100 users, or as the above 1 user at 1kbps or some other ridiculous slow speed.

Since dynamic load balancing isn't possible in the software, I would like to see some minimum/maximums instituted. Like maybe 50kbps and 2 users (not counting userlist).

Or even better, limit controls of speed and number of users to privileged users only. It wouldn't completely fix the problem, but would alleviate the huge bottlenecks by eliminating the throttling caused by clueless users and trolls.

P.S. Your cable situation seems unusual, there is usually enough bandwidth now that it doesn't affect your neighbors, unless of course you are all illegally sharing a single account lol

Oh wow, I've not run across people with 1 kbps upload. That would be really annoying! I sympathize.

Probably not going to annoy the neighbors, as you pointed out, but it would annoy the rest of the household which of course shares just the one account. With VoIP and Skype and such, we definitely notice an impact on the quality when I'm uploading a lot, so I do have to have limits on it.

As for the 50 kbps min, if someone's got monthly bandwidth caps (common here in the US), they'll hit their limit far too fast with that (unless that's the only bandwidth-intensive thing they do)--would only be able to be on at short bursts at a time. I used to only be able to get on Slsk at the end of the month, if I'd skimped on bandwidth the rest of the time. Now that I'm paying for better 'net and got rid of those caps, I'm on 24/7, with a decent rate of speed for general users, so if someone really wants something from me, they'll get it (they just might wait a few hours to a day, depending on what others have queued up). But then, I don't share most of my videos and games/applications to the general users because of their size (and many of those are easy to find elsewhere); books and music are my upload priority.

So with anyone with a bandwidth cap, the 50kbps minimum is probably too high--but I don't have any quibbles about the 2 users bit. At the very least there should be a maximum user amount allowed, as I can't see anyone having enough upload that 100 users is a reasonable number to be uploading to at the same time!

-shotgun-'s picture

I would like to see it cuz sometimes ppl wait hours if not days for a single, sub-50mb file while others d/l gigz of movies... and I'd like to just let them specifically get what they want. So it'd be a right click on user to allow him to d/l now, and some UI tab where u can set the additional bandwidth allocated for (each) additional temp slot.

As for the 1k/sec limit, I've encountered it. Sometimes it's abuse and just like with a no-share cases, I'd like to be able to set slsk to provide me with a heads-up in such instances (beyond the auto-msg sent to the user)