test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

StarTrek Downloader is useless...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
So i decided to give a try to this game and see the Demo, as i'm looking for a new MMO...
But i can't even download it! The downloader loads at ~350kBps (net connection could download at around 1.2MBps - ISP=T-Online, not some noname s...) for a minute, then 0kBps for 5-10 mins, then another short loading phase and so on... I'm downloading like 30+ hours ago now, and i'm at 47%...

Is that a joke or what? Come on, if you can't make a decent downloader or can't run any useful servers, at least post the client on sites like Fileplanet or GamersHell! (actually there is a client there, but it's outdated, beta...)

And no, don't start telling me, that my network is bad, my firewall isn't set up properly and so on, because i download tons of stuff every day, and it pretty much works... not to mention i'm a system administrator so i do know how to set up a firewall or router...

Running Win7 64bit, also tryed downloading from my other PC (XP 32bit), the result is the same. Tryed disabling software firewall and setting DMZ on my pc in the router, result is the same...

The day before yesterday i also tryed downloading with bittorrent, there were 2 leechers and 0 seeders, great...

If you guys try to get new players, THIS IS NOT THE WAY! :mad:
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Hey, the torrent download works now (probably your tracker was down Wensday), Yay! Ohh wait, DL speed 440k, average speed reported by tracker: 170k...
    Oh well, still a LOT better than the downloader, not to mention its continual...

    Update: 800k... hey, its nearly gettin good, w00t...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Of note, the Downloader is actually a torrent client, so if you were not seeing any seeders yesterday that would explain the poor download speeds.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    had the same issue as the poster, have the same isp. Steam was what finally worked well with full throttle. Other 2 sources are bad enough to not use them. on the other hand, patching the client taking way too much time. and all 3 sources have different sized files. perhaps they arent same build? ofc, steam got the smallest, so i have to download another 2.5gb with like 80kbit/s
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    coderanger wrote:
    Of note, the Downloader is actually a torrent client, so if you were not seeing any seeders yesterday that would explain the poor download speeds.

    Then, here's a wonderful idea. Try doing the professional thing and ponying up for the bandwidth necessary to serve your customers so you don't have to rely on your customers' bandwith to serve your customers.

    Had an HDD failure on my PC and had to rebuild. Results:

    EVE client: 2+ gb. downloaded in under an hour
    STO client: 7+ gb. Got 30% done in 14 hours. Gave up. Borrowed retail DVD.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Then, here's a wonderful idea. Try doing the professional thing and ponying up for the bandwidth necessary to serve your customers so you don't have to rely on your customers' bandwith to serve your customers.

    Had an HDD failure on my PC and had to rebuild. Results:

    EVE client: 2+ gb. downloaded in under an hour
    STO client: 7+ gb. Got 30% done in 14 hours. Gave up. Borrowed retail DVD.
    We have more than enough bandwidth (10gbit primary feed, never goes above 5 even on heavy patch days). What we don't have is a geographically distributed CDN. Building such a CDN seems foolish when BitTorrent does the same thing but better, and it costs several million to build and operate such a network. We run 6 primary seeders at all times with HTTP backup (I think each seeder handles 500mbit of traffic, so ~3gbit devoted to torrents if needed). Amazon Web Services recently began offering a CDN system that feeds off S3, but we haven't had time to evaluate it for use in a downloader. BitTorrent, like it or not, is a well known and standardized protocol and the client library we use is battle tested by far more people than will ever use our downloader. Pretty hard to beat that :-)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Give the "Download via proxy" a try, gives me nice 1MiB/s speed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    coderanger wrote:
    We have more than enough bandwidth (10gbit primary feed, never goes above 5 even on heavy patch days). What we don't have is a geographically distributed CDN. Building such a CDN seems foolish when BitTorrent does the same thing but better, and it costs several million to build and operate such a network.

    And when you can simply rent time on at least three different pre-existing ones.
    Amazon Web Services recently began offering a CDN system that feeds off S3, but we haven't had time to evaluate it for use in a downloader.

    Akamai and Google being the other two, both of which have been in the business for years. Akamai notably can do it for less than the cost of local bandwidth - in most places it's actually cheaper to host plain http downloads on their service than it is to rent the network pipe you'd need to do it yourself.

    Bittorrent's still cheaper and faster though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    The only downside about bittorrent is that some ISP's throttle it since it's mostly used for illegal downloads. Which explains the crappy downloadspeeds people are getting sometimes.

    Another CDN to add to your list which EVE uses is limelight networks. But just like the bittorent option this has it's downsides, it doesn't work smooth for everyone and people do still complain but that's mostly due to BITS. EVE people are actually crying out for a torrent client but CCP won't give one due to the exact reason stated above.


    Edit: as for my personal experiences with the cryptic downloader. I'v never had *any* issues with it at all. It has always worked smooth and even maxes out my connection 90% of the time. So I really can't complain.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Sleepkever wrote: »
    The only downside about bittorrent is that some ISP's throttle it since it's mostly used for illegal downloads. Which explains the crappy download speeds people are getting sometimes.

    So you use Comcast too?? :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    would be nice if the customers could connect to that 10gbit connection.. me and many others are starting to post that the loader cant update since the server maintenance started and finished.

    of course we also had bad disconnect problems 2 hrs before the maintenace was een supposed to begin.. someone jump the gun?

    and now a large (or all) portion of our customers cant connect at all... that 10gbit sitting at 0% right now or what?

    path ping unable to resovle, forced at 0%, 100% loss. after #10 cryptic-1.border12.bsn.pnap.net

    12:01pm EST / 9:01PST .. fixed.. guess somebody just got to the office and flipped the switch.. tell them thankyou.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    yes they really should have a http or some other kind of download that doesn't require bittorrent as many more isp's are killing off the ability to bittorrent
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Findell wrote:
    yes they really should have a http or some other kind of download that doesn't require bittorrent as many more isp's are killing off the ability to bittorrent

    Most of the world can get access to a decent ISP. Why don't you?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Miiru wrote:
    And when you can simply rent time on at least three different pre-existing ones.



    Akamai and Google being the other two, both of which have been in the business for years. Akamai notably can do it for less than the cost of local bandwidth - in most places it's actually cheaper to host plain http downloads on their service than it is to rent the network pipe you'd need to do it yourself.

    Bittorrent's still cheaper and faster though.

    We don't do nearly enough traffic to make something the scale of Akamai cost-effective. CloudFront might make sense because AWS scales their pricing down well, most others don't.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Miiru wrote:
    Most of the world can get access to a decent ISP. Why don't you?

    I'm not speaking for myself but many ISP's Like Comcast etc. are starting to heavily filter out things like bit torrent traffic making it almost impossible to use.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Findell wrote:
    I'm not speaking for myself but many ISP's Like Comcast etc. are starting to heavily filter out things like bit torrent traffic making it almost impossible to use.
    Which is why we have HTTP fallback setup.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Findell wrote:
    I'm not speaking for myself but many ISP's Like Comcast etc. are starting to heavily filter out things like bit torrent traffic making it almost impossible to use.

    Yes. Don't be a comcast customer. For every ISP who does this, there are a hundred who don't. Unless you're unlucky enough to be stuck in a backwater with a local monopoly, you have a choice of which ISP to use. When you pick your ISP, think about more than the price.
Sign In or Register to comment.