Moving files to/from RS and MU, MF, HF, NL etc

userL301 wrote:
thanks userL301

I dont really want to rename the file at all - if is BessieBloggs_001.rar at the source I would rather in land at the target as BessieBloggs_001.rar and not _fshklsii3.

But svinto & Loui have solved the rename issue I had - by referring me to the RS rename feature, thats not available in the most often used view, thats OK - its in Beta like everything else these days

But I still cant move files between ANY 2 of the 4 FO allowable file hosts. I am **** to use a non allowable file host as a bridge.

That says to me that the FO allowable file host list is not only too restrictive - it is in fact dysfunctional.

w-e

Thanks userL301, i forgot the "&/"

That remoting between the allowed filehosts is not working properly just happens by chance, not by purpose.
But let us not change the topic and discuss allowing new filehosts here.

I bought a one-year netload account after RS announced this 60-day inactivity rule just for storing purposes (they don't delete as long as you are paying) and since i know that remoting works fine. If some files get down on RS (due to inactivity) they can be easily remoted from netload.
_________________
> Amateurs | > Handjobs | JAV Movies

OK, not helpfull, but You don't need to post the links of the "bridge-host" at this forum, i'd select a host that i actually use for downloading.

In general MU seems worth more investigation, but IMHO MU is not very convenient to use.

svinto wrote: Strange thingy: somehow i managed to load the first 200MB of a large file from MU to RS until "ABORTED! (Max. file-size)" appears. Small files are re-directed to the standard MU page (33kB), but from MU to netload is working for both.

RS -> MU should work with user:pass-links and "Direct Downloads" enabled at RS. TraficShare should not be necessary.



btw. this link to beta-zone is working fine with Collectors-Accounts, too: https://ssl.rapidshare.com/premzone.html

p.s. usually i'm not renaming the meaningfull parts of a file-name, but it's usefull to get rid of .htm-endings or to replace not-allowed characters or to restrore characters replaced by underscores at RS. Also usefull for "restoring" real filenames from cryptic file-IDs.

userL301 wrote:
I must be blind, never saw that, i just switched between normal and new zone when already being logged in.
Thanks for pointing that out, userL301, there's no need anymore to use the RS account manager to manage your collector accounts.
_________________
> Amateurs | > Handjobs | JAV Movies

Loui375 wrote:
Thanks Loui

As you say, that works if file gets deleted due to inactivity, but if a file gets reported then you can't upload the same file, you must upload a file with a different size and checksum, and to be safe a different file name.

This is why I want to use an allowable file host as the backup - if an RS file gets reported, then I can change the link to the "backup" host and upload the replacement file to the RS when it convenient.

This is what I do with MF, if the RS link gets reported I switch the MF copy to public access. When I upload the file with different size, checksum and name to RS, the next day, next week etc, I post the new RS link and set the MF file back to private.

But to do that I have to use a non allowable Premium file host as a bridge (for performance) If I don't post the bridge host then I have to pay for it and the backup - i.e I pay HF US$55 and MF US$58 = US$113pa. If HF was allowed or RS worked with MF then I would only need one other account.

It is on that premise that I made the statement that the choice of file hosts needs reconsidering because it's dysfunctional. I appreciate that the dysfunction is not an error of commission, but I do suggest that it's error of omission. Omitting to appreciate a) the full ramification of RS' new expiry rules, b)the ramification of ever increasing picture set and video file size - especially softcore stuff, it is not uncommon for a "fine art erotica" picture set to be around a 1G these days.

I agree this is not a discussion for this thread but I have been raising this issue with svinto, MDR and in other contexts for some time. To date all I get is "the topic of file hosts is closed" - or words to that effect. I get the impression that the last discussion might have been vexed, and that a few bruised egos were left wallowing in its wake.

But I will continue to raise it until one of three things happens - a) something is done about it, b) I stop posting at FO or c) FO bans me.

If it were my decision I would deprecate iFile.it to no "new links after April 30th" and replace it with Hotfile immediately.

I just went to buy some milk, whilst walking up the street I had a thought - don't get many of them, so I notice them when they do happen. I think you have collectively, and perhaps unwittingly, have provided me with a workable solution - albeit not optimal.

My problems between RS and MF are twofold

Upload from RS to MF - does not work - MF gets a 35 Kb file of html
Upload from MF to RS - works but file name in RS is wrong, no problem RS had hidden rename

So rather than doing initial upload to RS then copying to MF, go the other way - upload to MF, copy MF to RS, rename file RS file, make MF file private, post RS Link

When RS file expires, make MF file public, copy MF to RS, rename, make MF file private, post new RS link

When RS file reported, delete file from RS, make MF file available to downloaders - probably via a "trick", make a file with same content but different size, MD5 and name, upload to MF, copy to RS, rename, make MF file private, post new RS link, delete the old file from MF

Bit awkward but no more so than a 3 host solution with double fees.

I think I can pilfer a virgin MU Premium account from someone we know, if I can get it I will test out my ideas with it.

Suddenly feel a lot happier - thanks to everyone who's contributed to this discussion - I'll report back on progress - woo hoo, off to the races we go.

cheers w-e

userL301 wrote:
Thanks userL301,

your finding pretty much the same as mine

I occasionally get aborts between all hosts I use (RS, HF, SM & MF) on 200Mb files, can't say that any one is any worse than others - my guess is that one in about 1 in 25 big transfers will hiccup, run it again and it will be OK.

i agree with you on RS Traffic Share, it should not come into the equation at all.

Your experience with MU and netload is the same as mine with MF and hotfile - they just work. All evidence points to fact that the problems are at RS, not at MU nor at MF.

Thanks for your input too - w-e

I like your idea of replacing deleted or reported files on RS as soon as possible, and i'm trying to do the same, but not by having a backup on another allowed filehoster, but by having a copy in a RS collector account.
Two reasons why i choosed netload as a backup host: they have no download limit and they have a pretty good file management and link export option.
You can easily list up to 500 files on one page and select via checkboxes which files you want to export (into a excel-file). I said above that i have all my RS files once remoted to netload and i never posted any netload link on a forum, so they are just for storing purposes.
What i do every two month is the following: i export all files in an excel file, do some easy formatting an i get a list of all links in the appropriate way to remote them to RS (without having to rename them afterwards)

hxxp://pw:login@netload/filename.rar.htm/filename.rar

So the only thing i have to do is to make packages of 300 links (max size of the RS upload module) and wait until it's done. You can speed that up by using two or three collector accounts simultaneously.

At the end i have a backup copy of all my RS premium links in a collector account. So if a file gets reported, i just move the backup copy to the premium account and change the links in the forum post.
Afterwards i have enough time to upload a new version with different hash-value, and the game begins again.
Of course the unused links in the collector account get deleted after 60-day inactivity, but i takes about one hour every two months to remote everything and you need only one other paid filehoster.
_________________
> Amateurs | > Handjobs | JAV Movies

Loui375 wrote:
Hi Louie

That implies that when you move a file from collector to premium that RS does not check to see if the file is the same as a previously reported file - is that what you're saying.

I know it does the checks on a remote upload, I've tried it - you get a message that say "this file has been previously reported .... upload rejected."

Regarding having standby copies - when I upload something that I know will be targeted (eg emp-pee-ell or double-u-bee-four) I upload a copy with some padding, when the deleters have done their job, I plug that version into the alternate download socket, so far its working - em-pee-ell check my threads every day or two

your netload process sounds good - I need to have a look at netload and digest what you wrote.

time for testing RS<->MU

Well unless someone can join the discssion and reveal some secrets I'd say that MU is not worth considering as a backup file host for RS

I have just done some testing with an MU Premium account and I can confirm and add to svinto's observations - when I upload from MU to RS, HF or MF I get a33K of HTML that renders to what you see in the attachment. I conclude that this must be a problem MU because its the same behaviour everywhere.

Going the other way upload from RS (file fetch in MU speak) I ran into the "pending" problem that svinto spoke of, but it was still pending after 20 minutes - so I went to another computer and did a free download and it took 2 minutes.

So I tried to upload (file fetch) from Hotfile, again 20 minutes later it was still pending - so I went to another computer and did a free download and it took 2 minutes.

On the "Multifetch: page there's a thing called "Cookie Manager" - see attachment, what's that about, not of the other file hosts need to know about other file hosts cookies.

w-e

who-ever wrote:

Well, knock on wood, it is still working, they don't check the hash when moving files between several accounts.

But if RS is implementing such a routine, you can still place the backups in your premium account, maybe by using a special folder via new premium zone. This would even mean less work, cause you don't have to move the files, just replace the link.
_________________
> Amateurs | > Handjobs | JAV Movies

Loui375 wrote:
One would have to assume that RS will close that loop hole at some time.

Thats what I do with the "prime target" files, except I dont use a special folders. My file names are yyyymmdd_nnn.rar, so if I create a replacement for 20100315_003 then I will name it 20100315_003_01.

cya

No better results from my investigation

First of all: MU is blocking RS.

File-fetching with a RS-link returns a >> Error: Access to this URL is forbidden <<

I've tested other servers (ftp and http), but the remote-upload "feature" at megaupload is just plain crap. Jobs are "pending" forever and the connection is really slow. Sometime a >> Error: Size error (retrying) << occurs, because the dowmnload to MU is hanging. At nigt-time in europe things seem better.
Besides that there are way too many mouse-clicks necessary just to get a single link into the queue.


Second: in order to get the full MU-links you need to use a link generator (I found and modified a php-script). The low-tech version is to copy the download-link.

Not very convenient, but it's possible to remote upload from MU to RS, the speed is quite good. (I didn't test, how long the links are valid.)



MU doesn't want to have files copied to their servers. Free user can't fetch files at all and even for premium user it's blocked from RS and probably other hoster, too.

For this desired purpose megaupload is just plain crap! MU is maybe good for few files from time to time, it's unusable for many files and frequent use.





About netload: I've tested with more than thousand links at once, and it's working fine. The upload-page stops loading and updating, but the files are transfered completely - sure, this takes a while and when there is a high server-load (during HH) some files are missing (only some kB loaded). Many files take a while to load, but i've not found any limit for file number and the overall-size (besides that the happyhopur at RS ends ).


I'd recommend netload: no traffic limits and a very convenient and easy to use interface.
Or hotfile - there you can find more international uploads.

Just wanted to let folks know that I have not forgotten my commitment to summarize our findings

The disruption caused by last weeks attack on PIC POSTS and the temporary loss of my Hotfile account due to someone trying to simultaneously Hack/Hijack it has been occupying my time. Its going to take me a couple of weeks to reconstruct my old AR thread into the new A.R.T. thread.

Losing access the Hotfile account for a week really pissed me off, they blocked my IP addy, which is static and they suspended the account. but it worked out OK I did not lose a single file and people could still download - strange outfit Hotfile - good though.

w-e

My apologies for discovering this discussion a little late...

Disclaimer: I am NOT well versed with hosting/transferring files via HF, MU, or some of the other hosts mentioned here.

Having stated that...

In order to perform the equivalent of a "remote upload", doesn't the destination file host simply need direct unguarded (nothing fancy) access to the file in question?

If that answer is "yes" then any of these might be viable solutions:
A) Upload the file once to an independent FTP site and then have each final destination access/transfer/host ("absorb") it directly from there.
B) Find a free/generic web site hosting service to post the file initially. You can then use that direct link to allow your final destination to access/transfer/host ("absorb") it directly from there.
C) Enable web services on a local machine, move the file to a web-shared folder, and then have each final destination access/transfer/host ("absorb") it directly from there. Yes, this is less efficient than A or B, but you could (possibly?) queue the transfers and batch execute them during idle time.

In other words, instead of trying to navigate/transfer files to/from HF, MU, RS - would it be easier to:
1) Upload the file (temporarily) to some alternate very generic easy/direct access place initially (not RS, MU, HF).
2) Have all final destinations (RS, MU, HF, etc) access/transfer/host ("absorb") it directly from that very generic easy/direct access location.

?

Each of you might have specific/individual concerns with A, B, or C above - so each individual's question might become - "Are there any neutral (non-RS, non-MU, non-HF) locations available to me where I can temporarily store my files?".

Just thinking out loud, while we all patiently wait for forumophilia to be the first forum to come up with an "FTP hosting plan" for dedicated members... j/k

Seriously though, eons ago, there used to be tons of open FTPs, and there used to be tons of generic/free web hosting sites available that would have easily served this very purpose. Such sites may still exist today, but I don't have the necessary resources to investigate/test.

Best wishes.

I am not sure what blood.lust means by this phrase "final destination access/transfer/host ("absorb") it directly from there."

If he means dynamically access the FTP site on demand - ie when a leecher initiates a download - I know of no file host that offers such a facility, as far as I know a downloader can only access files stored on the file host they are accessing.

I know of no reliable secure public FTP service. I know of some that are unreliable and/or insecure and/or private . I know of two that are reliable, secure and "public" - but a) they cost serious money - e.g. $0.02 per 1G per day - $100G/pa = $730, b) they require users to be a registered business etc.

If file hosts such as Hotfile and Netload were FO Approved File Hosts there would be no issue, this topic would not exist.

You would just up to one and copy to the others at high speed - including MF and MU.

Then if say a Rapidshare file gets reported you could post a Hotfile link while you reup to Rapidshare. If a Rapidshare file expires you copy a new copy to from HF or NL and post the new link.

The problem is that transferring files between MF and MU and RS is problematic. MF and MU have no problems transferring files to & from HF or NL, RS has no problems transferring files to & from HF or NL.

But what would I know - I've stopped posting content at FO - too many reports.

w-e