Empty ECM cacheex

[dino78]

Hello.

Since a while now I'm having trouble with oscam cache because of fake ecm. I have cache lines exchanged with oscam servers and with CSP. It seems I get many fake ECM like these :
9127AF0 p pushed ECM 0963&000000/0000/C47C/00:00000000000000000000000000000000 to username_22 res 77 stats -1
91D1598 c ignored duplicate pushed ECM 0963&000000/0000/15BA/00:00000000000000000000000000000000 from user_34
c got pushed ECM 0963&000000/0000/0F23/00:00000000000000000000000000000000 from user_45

I checked over and over and nothing is changed after upgrading to latest version of oscam . I tried using other earlier oscam versions but it seems this error is unstoppable at the moment . What am I doing wrong ? Anyone else having this issue ?

[sky190176]

delete post

[turbopower]

I disabled all of my peers with old oscam version but 0 key still flow. Maybe we need to want from oscam team to set in code 0 keys to be rejected.

[sky190176]

delete post

[wannaplay]

There seems to be some problem with this cacheex system, when viewing a channel only the first cached ecm seems to work... i view the channels for the duration of that cached ecm but then it stops and you need to go to another channel and come back to get a cached ecm from that channel... has anyone noticed this problem? It seems as though the ecm expired and so it doesn't show any viewing and for some reason its not going back to get another ecm that hasn't expired .. or can't find any... it just stays in the blank screen and only going out of the channel and coming back to it, then it works.... how weird is that? Is there a solution to this?

I actually tried to view some channels on my vu+duo which is connected to my cacheex server. Just started using cacheex and basically its an aweful viewing experience... you can't rely on it for viewing unless you have a lot of peers and millions of cached ecm's per day... this is my personal viewing experience and don't even want to imagine whats its like what its like for someone else trying to watch television such as peer of mine with an even worser ecm time... you need a dedicate a server and massive amounts of bandwith... its a lot of cost and trouble you go into for little benefit oh so it seems... The only advantage that i see to it is that it reduces the load on your local card, if you wanna have hundreds of peers... even then it doesn't seem to work properly, it returns a lot of expired cached ecms on the viewing side reciever (peer), it improves the cached figures on oscam locally, but on the client end, say the viewer you get a bad viewing experience as the image cracks up and there are a lot of freezes as a result... at least thats my experience... whats the point?!?

enlighten me please?

[CapNCooK]

There seems to be some problem with this cacheex system, when viewing a channel only the first cached ecm seems to work... i view the channels for the duration of that cached ecm but then it stops and you need to go to another channel and come back to get a cached ecm from that channel... has anyone noticed this problem? It seems as though the ecm expired and so it doesn't show any viewing and for some reason its not going back to get another ecm that hasn't expired .. or can't find any... it just stays in the blank screen and only going out of the channel and coming back to it, then it works.... how weird is that? Is there a solution to this?

you can't rely on it for viewing unless you have a lot of peers and millions of cached ecm's per day... this is my personal viewing experience and don't even want to imagine whats its like what its like for someone else trying to watch television such as peer of mine with an even worser ecm time... you need a dedicate a server and massive amounts of bandwith... its a lot of cost and trouble you go into for little benefit oh so it seems... The only advantage that i see to it is that it reduces the load on your local card, if you wanna have hundreds of peers... even then it doesn't seem to work properly, it returns a lot of expired cached ecms on the viewing side reciever (peer), it improves the cached figures on oscam locally, but on the client end, say the viewer you get a bad viewing experience as the image cracks up and there are a lot of freezes as a result... at least thats my experience... whats the point?!?

enlighten me please?

Its indeed time to get enlightened.

--

• Cache3 is to lower load on your cards and peers. Its not ment to be used against a client only.
  You must have either the local card or proxy with the corresponding subscription to get a freeze-free experience.
  .
• Cache3 is capable of reducing 99.0% of all requests from proxy/card within one CAID on 24h measurement. (best i've seen)
  .
• Cache will higher you responsetimes one time only, when there is no cached answer for the request. (waittime + request time from proxy)
  After this, waittime is turned off (automatically)
  .
• Yes you will need some bandwidth, so if you want to have a bigger cache solution, you need a server in datacenter.
  .
• Oscam never returns "expired" cache, since every request from a client is unique. So one answer is possible, and if its there, its there.
  .
• You really must use latest oscam (8077 and higher). This is a minimal requirement, because memleaks and other bugs are fixed in latest builds.

[wannaplay]

Doesn't normal cache do this already?!? i.e. you recieve a request, it stores the ecm in cache and delivers it as cache to the client when requested as long as its not expired... this is the same thing as normal cache...no? what does cacheex do differently or improves?

A benefit of cacheex is that, if you haven't got some channels you can have them, and fills that hole and can use it along side your local... as additional channels on your server, but i tried this and the viewing experience is aweful, there's lots of freezes... normal cache already does what you say above, you don't need cacheex to relay cache...

And... if you try using cacheex for addition channels, i.e. channels you don't have on your local, i've noticed, sometimes by the time the client recieves the cache, its expired on their end, it registers ok on the server, but on client end its already expired or something else didn't work as the channel didn't continue working, something doesn't work properly anyway, as the channel doesn't open, i'm not sure what though, i've probably got a bad setup or something... its cccam on the vu+duo for viewing and the servers are oscam... you guys see any problem there?

I can see another reason to use cacheex and thats to offload the load on your card server on to a more powerful computer, but this would only need apply to big servers, with hundreds and thousands of peers, but why do this and not just get a powerful rig and do everything from there anyway...

In my view cacheex is pointless, if it can't be used independently or adds channels to what you already have on your local... do i make sense?

What cacheex is trying to do is, to use others peoples cache in addition to your own... and the only useful outcome is if its channels you don't have, no?!?

People are using it for a reason... i just don't get whats the use of it, if you can't add to the channels you already have without them freezing... enlighten me?

[CapNCooK]

Doesn't normal cache do this already?!? i.e. you recieve a request, it stores the ecm in cache and delivers it as cache to the client when requested as long as its not expired... this is the same thing as normal cache...no? what does cacheex do differently or improves?

A benefit of cacheex is that, if you haven't got some channels you can have them, and fills that hole and can use it along side your local... as additional channels on your server, but i tried this and the viewing experience is aweful, there's lots of freezes... normal cache already does what you say above, you don't need cacheex to relay cache...

And... if you try using cacheex for addition channels, i.e. channels you don't have on your local, i've noticed, sometimes by the time the client recieves the cache, its expired on their end, it registers ok on the server, but on client end its already expired or something else didn't work as the channel didn't continue working, something doesn't work properly anyway, as the channel doesn't open, i'm not sure what though, i've probably got a bad setup or something... its cccam on the vu+duo for viewing and the servers are oscam... you guys see any problem there?

I can see another reason to use cacheex and thats to offload the load on your card server on to a more powerful computer, but this would only need apply to big servers, with hundreds and thousands of peers, but why do this and not just get a powerful rig and do everything from there anyway...

In my view cacheex is pointless, if it can't be used independently or adds channels to what you already have on your local... do i make sense?

What cacheex is trying to do is, to use others peoples cache in addition to your own... and the only useful outcome is if its channels you don't have, no?!?

People are using it for a reason... i just don't get whats the use of it, if you can't add to the channels you already have without them freezing... enlighten me?

Read my points again, especially the first one:

- A client cannot use cache only, it will freeze, unless there's a full cache at anytime.


Furthermore;

Cache3 is the transport and merging of local oscam caches. Nothing more, nothing less.
So its indeed the same, but now cache comes from from external oscams too, filling your local cache (table).

There are cache sources for specific caid's, like 0963, that contain over 90% of all channels most of the time.
So adding such a source, will gain an instant 90% save on your card and proxy hits.


Furthermore;

- No, cache-ex is evenly effective on smaller and bigger oscams. As long there is cache, a client will get the answer from cache.
- No, cache is not only ment for bigger servers. There are much caid's with surflock protection (max 4 sid's/10sec). With cache = no surf-lock. Also effective on smaller servers.
- No, cache-ex is not to fill gaps in your subscription. You must have the channel on card, or on proxy to watch freeze-free. Without locals, you get freeze because some cache gets in too late, or simply aren't available.
- No, You don't need a 'rig' for cache-ex. A vps in datacenter is enough, and these go from 10$ month.
- No, cache-ex is far from 'pointless'. Why do you think there is so much interest for it.

You should be enough enlightened to get the use of it now...

Last thing..
You probably found my tutorial, which is a nice start. But there's so much development going on with cache-ex, its very outdated and important parameters are missing.
CSP Waittime parameter is required and most important. Use the search to find more info, if you are planning on trying cache-ex the way it was intended.

[TV_LICENCE]

Hi wannaplay!
Everything you said I agree 100% because I was saying the same some time ago.... But nobody listens :(
the way cacheex is developed, the way it is used, the way it is exchanged - payservers are the only ones who can benefit from it . Especially the ones who are sending ECMs without user requesting for it.
That's why they need big cache, because they sending data all at once.
thanks

P.S it's becoming a "big business" for some middle east countries .
Actually this is only one of examples, payservers are using a cache in other ways as well, and not only in middle east. Like greatly reducing load from their cards and their peer lines. If not cacheex they had to buy cards in dozen - so it saves them a lot of money
and many normal users just becoming a "donkeys" for them by giving away their cache

[CapNCooK]

Everything you said I agree 100% because I was saying the same some time ago.... But nobody listens :(

We know you want to prove your cache-ex conspiracy theories out loud. Basically you try to grab any thread you like to spread your "Anti-Cache-Share" theories, and i really don't understand why TV_LICENSE.
How can you "100% agree" with a post that contains mainly misunderstandings.. With that, you have proven to not know anything about the general usage of cache-ex on this forum.

Especially the ones who are sending ECMs without user requesting for it. That's why they need big cache, because they sending data all at once.

Confusion all along... "payservers that 'send ECMs' without a user requesting for it ?" Say what ?

P.S it's becoming a "big business" for some middle east countries.

What exactly ? Peers that exchange cache for money.. ? Offcourse they do! They sell drugs and weapons too.

Actually this is only one of examples, payservers are using a cache in other ways as well, and not only in middle east. Like greatly reducing load from their cards and their peer lines. If not cacheex they had to buy cards in dozen - so it saves them a lot of money and many normal users just becoming a "donkeys" for them by giving away their cache

Correct, like we already concluded, also payservers are using cache. So what must we do with this info.. Stop sharing cache ? I realy don't think this statement belongs in this thread.

--

Bottomline.. Please stop posting negatively about cache-ex, and stop demotivating people to use it with reasons that are not in the interest of the main public of this forum.
It almost seems that _you_ have some interest to stop cache-ex. I'm curious to know.

To conclude:

- Yes, Payservers do benefit like any other peer, small or big from any sort cache.
- But Yes, It's also beeing used at many, many, small servers, to widen surf-lock protection limits.
(e.g. share a canal digital card with more than 3 people, the main reason i use cache-ex).


My point is, i'm connected to a lot of peers, whereof the main amount is _not_ related to any payserver at all.

Also, 90% of these peers are members from this forum, so I cannot believe you spread words like that on a forum that actually supports Oscam and Cache-EX, and even got specific sharing sections for it.
Its a little demotivating for the ones (like me) spending weeks to improve code and make things run smooth.

I do understand your objections against payservers in general, but its way out of common sense to link this directly to cache-ex.