Recent JD Issue: Input Appreciated

[User0]

A recent JD issue that has been getting my goat:

1) I use a paid servce that gives me access to many filehosts. The way it works is that I have to generate links through that service to the filehosts. In JD, the host for the link shows up as "directhttp." Now the problem:

After I generate the links with my service, I always Flashgot them into JD. What happens next is that I get a "Save To" location window popup, then once I approve that, the folder appears in my JD LinksGrabber pane with the title "FlashGot". I then get two progress bars at the bottom of the JD window saying "2 module(s) running." The modules are, "Checking online availability" and "Linkgrabber operations are pending." The problem: I FlashGot about 180 links totaling maybe 2GB and those operations are indeed continuing....FOR THE PAST HOUR.

The original hosts for those links were Filesonic and Wupload. My question is, is the problem related to JD, or to my link-generating service? Usually, the 2 JD modules do their thing in a matter of seconds, but this is ridiculous. Also, it seems as though Filesonic has been particularly slow for the past week. Anyone else have similar issues?

TIA

[pspzockerscene]

How is your link-generating-service called?

GreeZ pspzockerscene

[User0]

I use LinkSnappy. Jiaz helped develop a JD plugin for it, but I can't use it since it's only in the JD nightly version, and with my PPC G4 Mac I can only use Java 1.5, meaning I can't use the 1.6-only JD Nightly version. So, I have to use LinkSnappy manually.

Would you believe that still, after nearly TWO HOURS, JD is still running those two operations. SInce it's taking so long, I'm sure that half of the good, live links will come back dead, so I'll have to regenerate them again.

[pspzockerscene]

Please show a screenshot of that.

GreeZ pspzockerscene

[User0]

Screenshot? Well, after well over an hour -- closer to two, JD finally finished parsing all the links. Out of nearly 200, 27 came back dead...these were all good live links so I had to regenerate them again.

My question is this, pspzockerscene: When JD parses the links and goes through its "checking online availability" and "linkgrabber operations are pending" modes, is it interfacing with the original filehosts (in this case, Filesonic and Wupload) or with LinkSnappy's servers? If it's interfacing with LinkSnappy's servers, then I know the problem lies there and I will address it with them.

Thanks for your input.

[Jiaz]

you can also upgrade to nightly on mac, but you have to do it manually

java -jar jdupdate.jar -branch NIGHTLY
you have to type this in console and change path into jd folder first
cd /Applications/JDownloader.app/..../ where jdupdate.jar is

[User0]

Originally Posted by Jiaz

you can also upgrade to nightly on mac, but you have to do it manually

java -jar jdupdate.jar -branch NIGHTLY
you have to type this in console and change path into jd folder first
cd /Applications/JDownloader.app/..../ where jdupdate.jar is

Thanks but as I mentioned above, Nightly doesn't work for me. I tried upgrading so that I could use LinkSnappy through JD, which would be a heck of a lot more convenient than the way I'm doing it now, but none of the buttons worked in Nightly. I couldn't add any premium hosts, I couldn't do anything.

Jiaz, you told me the reason for this was because Nightly only supports Java 1.6 and since I was on Java 1.5 (and can't go any higher), I was out of luck unless you made some modifications to Nightly to support 1.5. That was back last Christmas time.

Nothing ever happened so I figured you were too busy or the task was too involved, and that was the end of it: I was out of luck --- and even though a JD plugin was developed for LinkSnappy, I wouldn't be able to use it.

I think LS should keep your links (files) alive for a longer period.

Maybe it's better to take a smaller number of links. The LS file servers might be overworked.

Do dead links contribute to your allowed traffic volumes?

[User0]

Really, really annoying. For anyone who cares to read this, take heed: I wrote my post to get a simple question answered: Was the problem I described related to JD or to my link-generating service? A really simple question: Was JD interfacing with the servers from the original filehosts, or with LinkSnappy? A simple question that the people who presumably know this program could have answered in two seconds.

Instead, I was asked for a screenshot. That's what usually happens. "Send us a log," something like that, when most of the time, we users just need a VERY SIMPLE ANSWER to a question that the JD software developers know in a heartbeat.

Well, I didn't get an answer, as you'll see by reading the above. So I had to do my own time-consuming investigating. Turns out, there have been problems over the past several days with Filesonic. On top of that, however, the problem WAS with LinkSnappy. Question answered: JD interfaces with them when it goes through its 2 routines as described above.

============== Extraneous information ==================

The problem with LinkSnappy's ultra-slow reponse time was because it was under heavy DDoS attack. Can you imagine that? "Hackers" clogging up access to a frigging link-generating service! Unbelievable. Tell me, what legitimate Hacker would find anything challenging, satisfying or derive any sense of accomplishment from DDoS-ing a link generating service? Answer: No legitimate Hacker would.

Whoever is behind DDoS-attacking a service like LinkSnappy (and I'm sure others like it) has to be punks hired by movie studios, recording companies, porn producers or software companies, those companies who probably feel that a link-generating service contributes to their content being infringed.

Used to be, Hackers had ethics. No way would they work for companies like that and betray their own. They were part of the underground themselves. But today, these punks aren't true hackers, just slimeball punks who know a few tricks and techniques, and sell themselves out for a few dollars to work for these companies.
===============================================

Anyway, remi, when working properly, LinkSnappy has no limit on its filehosts. The only one I've seen them limit was Oron, which had a 5GB/day limit, and yes, if you had failed d/ls as you described, it would still count toward your max. However, Oron is offline right now as far as LinkSnappy is concerned. They're not committing yet when or if they'll have it back. Oron has pretty much banned all datacenters in the US, as I understand.

I'm sorry if I didn't reply directly to your questions. I was trying to understand your problem by asking some questions.

I was already sure that if you would add LS links to jD it would check on the LS servers and not on other servers, but I forgot to tell it because it sounded so obvious. jD can't look elsewhere because the files are stored on LS servers.

Concerning the dying media/music industries. They don't hire hackers because the tools are readily available. LS's defence could be to hire some hackers to defend themselves against these DDoS attacks. They can't counter-attack because that's illegal and only cartels, supported by Mafia states, are allowed to do illegal things.