RamGuy

Established Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RamGuy

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I decided to give the new 3.3 release a go, upgraded from my somewhat trusted 2.0.4 client. Let me start with saying that uTorrent is running on my server running Windows Server 2012, so it's not like I check in on it a lot.. But it's been like a week since I upgraded and it's been three times when I have used TeamViewer to check up on how uTorrent is doing that it's simply not been running at all.. There is no error message or anything so I have no clue whether it's been crashing or not but already after just one week of use it has been "disappearing" three times more in one single week than 2.0.4 has been for over two months. And considering 2.0.4 doesn't even "support Windows 8 / Windows Server 2012" I find this rather fuzzy. If it weren't for the private trackers that I'm using I would still be using version 1.6.1, the last build by "Ludde". It's all gone downhill ever since the BitTorrent team started to mess around with the code and have had their focus on all kinds of nonsense not related to the important stuff which is reliability, lightweight and top transfer speeds. EDIT: A direct result of this is that my latest Family Guy Episode download, which usually get a ratio of at least 15:1 only got 1.8:1 .....
  2. Now that you have started with uTorrent Plus and what not, and are constantly developing a 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 branch all at once.. Why not simply add a uTorrent Lite, stripping all the nonsense many of us doesn't really care about (anti-virus, streaming, transcoding / converting and all other things not directly related to actually downloading and uploading using the torrent protocol..) Having a dedicated branch trimming away all the fat and only focusing on what a torrent client is really all about, getting the optimum performance out of our torrents with the lowest system resource footprint. This is exactly what happened with Nero, in the begging they simply offered a damn awesome burning software for Windows.. But from version 5 and onwards they started adding all kinds of nonsense not related to burning at all, making the entire package more clunky, less stable and over all a much worse package for those whom was simply asking for their damn burning software and not all the other nonsense.. Luckily the community provided us with illegal "Nero Lite" versions providing us with only the burning software, which was exactly what we was after all along.. This is how I feel about uTorrent, now it's more about adding all kinds of "new features" which have nothing to do with actual torrenttransfers at all.. As I'm not liking this development I will continue to stick with the oldest version currently supported by the trackers I use, which currently is v2.0.4. EDIT: And how come 3.2.3 adds support for Windows 8? What is this supposed to mean exactly? It's not like running v2.0.4 (like I do) on both my Windows 8 systems and one Windows Server 2012 (Windows 8 Server) is providing me with any issues of any sort. Neither do I have any kinds of problem with magnet links of any sort.
  3. I feel my upload is rather unstable, I can't figure why though. Might be because I mostly use private trackers, and they tend to be overloaded with seeders making it almost impossible to keep a 1:1 ratio even with a synchronised 25/25mbit connection. Downloading is going full throttle all the way, no issues with getting 25-26mbit download, but the upload is mostly staying between 8-12mbit.
  4. These charts seems to be based upon one having a rather crappy router / gateway, don't they? I'm by no means any expert on the matter, but doesn't the number of maximum connections and connected peers per torrent and number of upload slots all depend on your routers capabilities and not your individual bandwidth? I for instance have a Netgear ProSafe SRX5308 Firewall / Router and it's supposedly capable of running 200'000 concurrent connections and was tested to have no issues what so ever with Smallnetbuilder's cap of 48'924 concurrent connections in their review. Does this mean I can just push lots and lots of connections, or should I be re-consider my µTorrent settings in order to obtain optimal performance and stability? Currently I've just gone with these settings: - Enabled UPnP Port Mapping - Enabled NAT-PMP Port Mapping - Add Windows Firewall Exception (Even though it's not running, why would I use it when I got a hardware firewall..) Max Upload and Download set to: 2250 - Apply rate limit to transport overhead (Enabled) - Apply rate limit to uTP connections (Enabled) Global maximum number of connections: 4096 Maximum number of connected peers per torrent: 1024 Number of upload slots per torrent: 128 Use additional upload slots if upload speed < 90% (Enabled) Enable DHT Network Enable DHT for new torrents Enable Local Peer Discovery Enable Bandwidth Management (uTP) Enable UDP Tracker Support Ask tracker for scrape information Enable Peer Exchange Protocol Encryption: Forced Allow incoming legacy connections Maximum number of active torrents: 200 Maximum number of active downloads: 200 Override automatic cache size and specify the size manually (MB): 1024 Enable Caching of Disk Writes Enable Caching of Disk Reads Disable Windows caching of disk writes Disable Windows caching of disk reads That's my current settings. Or at least all the stuff I've got enabled and change from the default ones. My connection is a 25/25mbit fibre optic one, my router is as mentioned above a Netgear ProSafe SRX5308, my network card is Intel Pro/1000 ET Dual Server NIC running CAT7 cabling. My operating system is Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise not limiting my allowed Windows connections, and it's located on a 4x Intel X25-M 80GB RAID0 array on a LSI MegaRaid 9260-8i RAID card. Any feedback on my settings would be much appreciated!