Why max-connections-per-server is hardcode limit to 16?

[eromoe]

I don't understand why this is hardcode. 16 is too low, I want 1024 on windows, so have to rebuild it.
Every need more thant 16 need rebuild it , I think aria2 should remove this limitation.

[myfreeer]

Check #126 #577 #580 #648 #729

[myfreeer]

Check #126 #577 #580 #648 #729

[eromoe]

16 is plenty. Too easy to do DOS.

Looks like aria2 are trying to protect the site host ... If one really want to do DOS , you can not stop him by this.

But do you ever consider this situation:

Because official do not provide max-connections-per-server > 16 option, so some bad guys build their one with virus and spread to people. People who doesn't know tech always tend to download the dangerous one when they found it does faster than offical (Hackers always advocate their version is much faster).

[eromoe]

16 is plenty. Too easy to do DOS.

Looks like aria2 are trying to protect the site host ... If one really want to do DOS , you can not stop him by this.

But do you ever consider this situation:

Because official do not provide max-connections-per-server > 16 option, so some bad guys build their one with virus and spread to people. People who doesn't know tech always tend to download the dangerous one when they found it does faster than offical (Hackers always advocate their version is much faster).

[trudnorx]

The maximum connection limit needs to be removed.

It clearly goes against the basic principle that the user should be in control.

People clearly have a need for it. If they didn't observe a need for it with real-world usage, this wouldn't be so oft-requested. On the connections I have tested this on, more connections than 16 are needed to get the best speeds. People are experiencing this problem. Asking them to recompile it is inconvenient nonsense.

If we're speaking of a network application, of course it makes sense for the application not to be selfish and not hog bandwidth, e.g. by naturally adapting in order not to bother other applications, but hard-coded limits like this, that always apply even when they are not necessary, and that are enforced AGAINST the user, do not make any sense.

Once again, it is completely clear that there are many real-world cases where this is clearly needed to achieve benefits. Just think of home networks now reaching 100+Mbps commonly, and 500Mbps+ in many cases, and some protocols/server apps/configs being inefficient enough that they require multiple connections - on servers that can without a hitch handle more load.

If people don't need it, they can always choose not to use it. We're speaking of situations in which the user has specifically requested it.

[trudnorx]

The maximum connection limit needs to be removed.

It clearly goes against the basic principle that the user should be in control.

People clearly have a need for it. If they didn't observe a need for it with real-world usage, this wouldn't be so oft-requested. On the connections I have tested this on, more connections than 16 are needed to get the best speeds. People are experiencing this problem. Asking them to recompile it is inconvenient nonsense.

If we're speaking of a network application, of course it makes sense for the application not to be selfish and not hog bandwidth, e.g. by naturally adapting in order not to bother other applications, but hard-coded limits like this, that always apply even when they are not necessary, and that are enforced AGAINST the user, do not make any sense.

Once again, it is completely clear that there are many real-world cases where this is clearly needed to achieve benefits. Just think of home networks now reaching 100+Mbps commonly, and 500Mbps+ in many cases, and some protocols/server apps/configs being inefficient enough that they require multiple connections - on servers that can without a hitch handle more load.

If people don't need it, they can always choose not to use it. We're speaking of situations in which the user has specifically requested it.