[El man]

Hello!

I have this problem when I set a download speed limit that one download tends to crowd out the rest, taking up the full allotted bandwidth and leaving nothing to the others, making them eventually time out and abort. This is by the way the reason for the "no permission to write to disk" error I believe.

It would be a great improvement if you could provide the option to limit the speed of individual downloads, so that if I wish to use 150KB in total I could set up two slots of 75KB each for two simultaneous downloads, so that one doesn't interfere with the other (or three of 50KB each and so on).

Is this possible?

Thanks again for your wonderful program!!

[Jiaz]

not at the moment, but in future we plan to add such a feature

There is a workaround however.

You can run several jD instances and set a speed limit in each. You need to start each jD from a different folder and of course, partition your links.

[El man]

Any updates on this? Is this being worked on?

Downloads interfering with each other cause a lot of problems, including the famous "no permission to write to disk" error, which is really a timeout resulting from one download taking up the whole bandwidth and leaving nothing to the affected one.

Thanks again for your wonderful program!

I found this feature :-

I too Need this feature. It will further improve this already wonderful software.
But it seems it will take time as the request above already seems one year old. :-)

[drbits]

My guess is that this will become available in late 2011. There are some internal changes that should be made first (see Feature Request 2526).

The ticket that remi found Feature Request 395 relates to adding a speed limit per host. This is to allow downloading for free accounts at the same time as a Premium account.

I have found host speed limits hard to manage in the past, because of the varying number of free accounts one is downloading from. A queue fairness approach (similar to operating systems) is probably much better. The idea is to make sure that each download gets the time to process at least N packets per second by periodically stopping the premium downloads until each other download has either caught up with the server or processed N packets.

Hi!

I dont know if this has been brought up before (didnt really know what to search for) so sorry if my idea is a dupe. Anyways:
I'd like the option to set dl speeds per package or maybe per file.

My reason: take an example of downloading 2 files side by side each other. First one is on wupload, the other is mixed on wupload and filesonic (now, the hosters are not important, just an example, my actual situation). First one only has a few hundred MB's left, the other has plenty.

I would like to prioritize the first one, so it downloads faster, and then i can start dl-ing the other. This is because i am not always by the PC and i'd like to fill the captchas while i am. Optimization, sort of Now, i currently do this by disabling the second package, but that leaves me with an extra captcha, so a priorize option/feature would be more eleguant

Setting download speeds per file has been asked before. Please, read Speed limit for individual downloads?.

Your problem is not prioritising downloads because jD will do that automatically according to the sequence of the links in your download queue and/or the priorities you set.

Your problem is the captchas. You can solve this problem by using a mutual captcha solver solution like captchatrader or captcha brotherhood. Please, read the first post of the captcha thread.

Oh, hey, thanks! CBH works great for me!

I wish there was a feature to restrict the speed with which a package was being downloaded, so that the total bandwidth could remain same but I could allocate more download speed to some other package.

For e.g. I have a 250 KB/s connection. Package 1 contains RS files and is downloading as a free user at 150 KB/S. Package 2 contains MU files and is hence only able to download at 100 KB/s.

I wish I could restrict the speed of RS files to 50, so that MU files could download at 200 KB/s.

This might be helpful to those who want priorities not only on download order but even on how bandwidth is shared between top priority and low priority links.

[pspzockerscene]

Merged speedlimit threads.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

@catchuec

Read my post #3 if this is urgent for you.

We are already in the middle of 2011, will we get to see this feature implemented anytime in Q3 or Q4???

What a coincidence that you're using the same calendar.

The planning info that's available for this feature is Priority = Low and Target version = "JDownloader - FarfarAway". Don't expect it before the next major update has been released.

See also "More realistic project plan & schedule".

[pspzockerscene]

Sorry if we're too slow for you please use another downloadmanager...

GreeZ psp

Originally Posted by drbits

My guess is that this will become available in late 2011. There are some internal changes that should be made first (see Feature Request 2526).

The ticket that remi found Feature Request 395 relates to adding a speed limit per host. This is to allow downloading for free accounts at the same time as a Premium account.

I have found host speed limits hard to manage in the past, because of the varying number of free accounts one is downloading from. A queue fairness approach (similar to operating systems) is probably much better. The idea is to make sure that each download gets the time to process at least N packets per second by periodically stopping the premium downloads until each other download has either caught up with the server or processed N packets.

I didnt mean to be pushy. I just meade my comment with reference to drbits comment.

drbits' estimate was based on the data he had at that moment. If you read my post on the plan & schedule, you'll have an idea of what's going on.

Good Stuff!!! You put forth some eye-opening arguments remi.

Hi. First of all thanks for this great program, it makes things so much easier for me.

I would like to know if it could be possible to limit the download speed of one the files one by one in the future. As far as I know it's possible to limit the overall speed of JD, but according to my point of view it could be useful to limit the speed of every file if neccesary.

Thanks for reading and ... I hope I made myself understood, my English is quite poor.

Setting download speeds per file has been asked before. Please, read Speed limit for individual downloads?.

Pspzockerscene ... I hadn't found the other thread ... sorry for any inconvenience. Glad to know that it might be possible setting the download speed per file sometime in the future.

[El man]

Hello. Is there any progress on this? The inability to limit individual download speeds is the single major drawback of JDownloader at the moment.

As it is, if you set more than one concurrent download, one of them is bound to dominate and timeout the rest (some of which might not support resume, forcing you to start the file over and over again). If on the other hand you download a single file at a time, you risk running into a slow server and wasting most of your bandwidth and lots of time until that one file has finished downloading.

The inability to set individual speed limits leads to great inefficiencies and forces you to constantly nanny the program to make sure everything is running smoothly. Please, PLEASE, this is the most important feature missing from JD and the thing to focus on right now. Just add a control for Maximum Speed per Download right along side Max. Con., Max. Dls., and Speed.

THANK YOU!

[pspzockerscene]

Originally Posted by El man

Please, PLEASE, this is the most important feature missing from JD and the thing to focus on right now.

No, this is the most important feature for YOU!

Originally Posted by El man

Just add a control for Maximum Speed per Download right along side Max. Con., Max. Dls., and Speed.

If that was so easy JDownloader would already be able to wake you up, make a hot coffee for you and bring the newspaper.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

[El man]

Efficient utilization of bandwidth and prevention of failed downloads is the priority of any downloading application. If Jdownloader can't make me breakfast, it should at least download my files.

[pspzockerscene]

So you say limiting one download to give the other one more speed makes your download faster?
Not really!
Also even with the new feature you'll always have to correct the speed manually
...the feature will be implemented but we have no date for it so please just wait.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

[Jiaz]

will be possible with next major update

Originally Posted by El man

As it is, if you set more than one concurrent download, one of them is bound to dominate and timeout the rest (some of which might not support resume, forcing you to start the file over and over again).

i noticed this problem when limiting download speed. though when speed is not limited they don't timeout each other

and i miss this feature too:whistling:

[El man]

Originally Posted by pspzockerscene

So you say limiting one download to give the other one more speed makes your download faster?
Not really!
Also even with the new feature you'll always have to correct the speed manually
...the feature will be implemented but we have no date for it so please just wait.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

Let us say I have 450KB/s available. If I set "Maximum Downloads" to 3, one or two files are going to take up all the bandwidth and at least one of them is almost certainly going to get crowded out, time out and fail. Many servers do not support resume, so files will continually fail and start over from the beginning, wasting lots of time and bandwidth. If a server does support resume, the file might get corrupted from being cut off and resumed so many times.

If on the other hand I set "Maximum Downloads" to 1, eventually, even with a premium account, I am going to run into parts that download at something like 50KB/s or less. With some parts being as big as 1GB or more, this means an entire night of 400KB/s wasted until the file is completed and a new one from a fresh server is started. There might also arise problems with one host and given that we are limited to a single download, the program might not move on to another download from a different host and remain stuck the whole time while downloading nothing.

Now let us say you give us the option of "Maximum Speed per Download", no matter if I am downloading from a single host or from several hosts. I can then set "Maximum Downloads" to 3 and "Maximum Speed per Download" to 150KB/s. In this way, I am having three parallel downloads with no risk of one of them killing the others, and if a problem arises with one download (dead host, slow speed) I lose at most but 1/3rd of my bandwidth rather than all of it.

This is efficiency, and efficiency is what a program like JDownloader should strive towards.

I am a heavy user of JDownloader and this is the only feature that in my opinion it is missing. A single yet colossal deficiency.

[raztoki]

should just buy a modem/router with QoS built in, most have it these days. You wouldn't then have to worry about slow downloads dieing. Jiaz indicated that your request should be possible in our next major version, in some form or manner.

I'm also on a slow connection and I never have to worry about this happening its all managed for you at the hardware level. The problem I see with this type of setting is a upper limit, and then it slows downloads down all connections reguardless if 4 are active or just 1, for example. you set 112.5KB / connection which in your case allows for 4 connections (450KB), but then you only have two downloads active they are then limited too 2*112.5KB/sec connections == 225KB/sec (50%), due to wait times or what ever, extremely wasteful and slows down download queue for what the odd download that's slow?

I had a great idea for connection and bandwidth management but it would mean a large rewrite of the download controllers in JD. To actually remove most of the connection settings and let JD handle itself, but requirement is dynamic chunking. It would also have a monitoring component, which watches for socket issues (time outs - why connections fail?) and reduce the amount of active socket connections to prevent connection issues. But also does the opposite when slower connections from hosters are active it will then start another connection, say your downloading a series of files from distant location and its slower just based on geographical reasons, or the content provider is just slow.. This should keep your connection always ~95-8% maximised, but allows JD to self manage slow / fast connections automatically. It would also include a self monitoring feature of current wan(s) and there upper speed limitations. Self monitoring would allow for different times of the day (peak/off peak) speed increases/decreases, or even other activities on the network.

i've got a speedport W701V which has QoS and still got this problem (again: only if i lower the limit but i'm not sure if the router is responsible for software based speed limitation).

[raztoki]

Yes it is, most modem/routers are built ontop of busybox, which is stripped down linux type of thing, effectively its os+software based solution ontop of the modem hardware. QoS implements Quality of Service systems based on *:port and ip:* managed via algorithms. They tend to favour port 80-81 (standard http) over say some random port used by p2p etc. They are meant to prevent 1 connection takes all the bandwidth, and creating a bad service for the rest. Some units give you user preferences to define your own for example when VoIP service activates it QoS all other socket connections to allow for lag free internet/voice conversation.

Originally Posted by raztoki

I had a great idea for connection and bandwidth management but it would mean a large rewrite of the download controllers in JD. To actually remove most of the connection settings and let JD handle itself, but requirement is dynamic chunking.

That's indeed a great idea. It's much better to let jD deal with all the technical details instead of customers. Only a section in the settings for advanced customers would allow people to override jD's default behaviour.

[raztoki]

Talked it over with Jiaz briefly today he seemed interested! The download system hasn't been completely overhauled yet so maybe possible to just implement this idea in some manner. Time will tell.

[pspzockerscene]

Hm if he really wants to implement that for the next MAJOR it'll probably need even more time...
But maybe i'm wrong and he already started rewriting it ages ago.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

[rockwater]

This feature would also be very useful to help avoid getting long wait times between downloads at netload (and maybe some other hosters as well). I've noticed for instance that—after the regular wait time between two downloads has filled up the hour—netload often throws in a second wait time of an extra hour, if the preceding download was completed within an hour (netload allows freeloaders to download only one single file per hour). A small download of just 15 minutes can thus develop into a 2-hour download! What a waste of time!

It is however possible to get rid of the second hour of wait time by resetting the link, but this is nonetheless just as annoying as having to complete captcha's. For I still have to stay with the download process. But if I extend the download to just over an hour, I only get a wait time of 50 seconds between downloads and after those 50 seconds have ended the next download will start immediately without my having to interfere. So the solution is—after having done a little calculation—to set the overall download speed limit to precisely the value where the download will take at least just over an hour, thus avoiding getting the mentioned wait time to fill up the hour and thereby also avoiding getting the second wait time at all.

This method works as long as all the files are the same size. But as each container of files most often has files of different sizes, I have to attune the download speed limit to the new file size, each time a new package of files begins to be downloaded. A function in JD to accommodate the download speed limit for each file separately would make it possible—after having set the download limits for each file—to just walk away and not having to look back again until all of the download has finished!:w00t:

[alphabetabase]

I guess there's been no progress on this? Would be a nice feature.