freedomdwarf

I have been following this thread for a very very long time. I have seen the number of complaints and problems raised with v4.xxxx over the months/years. The latest niggles about having an x86 or x64 version; the LAA thingy, memory limits, yada yada yada. Whilst all these things are important for the purists, let's get back to basics... Regardless of whether you have the latest whizz-bang PC or a much older machine, your RAM is hugely faster than just about anything else in your box of tricks. The main bottleneck for uT is your internet speed and disk-thrashing if you are short of disk space. Just about everything else pales into insignificance. I'm still using uT v3.55 build 45263 (with Ads removed). Yes, it's ancient, but it does what I need. I often download complete discographies, multiple movies and whole TV series of several hundred Gigs at a time. It uses almost all of my 80Mb/s download capacity leaving just enough for me to surf unhindered and runs for weeks on end. I have never lost a torrent or associations and it has never crashed on me; not once. Unless you own one of the internet backbones, I find it utterly ridiculous that some people have thousands of torrents running. You only have a certain amount of dowload capacity. The more segments you chop that into, the slower each one is and takes longer. I have found there's very little to be gained (if any) by having loads of torrents running rather than a few dozen or so at a time. Just my 2cents worth.

Done all those and double-checked. Getting a few more pop-ups (all uTorrent.exe on random ports) but nothing like it used to. Earlier versions were never this intrusive. The Mrs runs a v2.something and she rarely sees pop-ups even tho we have the same system and pretty much identical software installed (identical Windows, MB & WD). Its only me that investigates beta software and new stuff. And I'll say it again.... I don't get ANY warnings at all from anything else - only uT when it's running. Just been watching it. It seems to be mainly from 80.82.70.163 [inbound & outbound].

That seems to have done the trick Been running for 15+ minutes now and only 1 warning pop-up. Normally, I would have seen a dozen or more warnings just typing this reply; but so far, just the one at the start and nothing else as yet. This is what I mean about this client - we have to jump thru hoops to stop it being really annoying in execution. I don't get that with other software, not even adware.

I have disabled ads as per your sig line and added more to my hosts file that I didn't have. Unless I've missed something, I don't see what else I can do.

I can only comment on my system here. uT running: constant warnings. uT not running: nothing.

Therein lies the problem. I don't see the ads in the client, MB/WD blocks them before the client gets the content. The problem is uT issuing the request for the malicious ads in the first place. Whether inbound or outbound, it is always uTorrent.exe. I get maybe *one* in a couple of dozen visits to torrent sites; I can live with that. But with uT running, it is constant. That's my gripe.

I don't "see" many ads - my hosts file blocks the majority of them and what few there are don't intrude on my use of the app or website. After a while, I don't even notice they are there. Just as with uT, I see no ads in the left pane at all because just about EVERY advert they try to poke at me is being blocked as malicious by MB and also sometimes by Windows Defender. I just get tired of seeing the pop-ups from MB every few seconds because of uT. I could turn them off but then I wouldn't catch something persistent that should be added to hosts. The problem is uT; nothing else triggers the warnings. uT needs to be a lot more selective in what it tries to deliver to the user. Constantly throwing up malicious sites is not a good experience.

I have several adware apps and quite a few websites that offer up adverts for various things. Not a single one of them triggers Malware Bytes "Malicious Website Blocked" warning message - only those offered by uT. That must tell the calibre (or not) of what they are trying to dish up. I'm not adverse to adverts as a concept. But adverts that constantly trigger warnings from my anti-virus and/or anti-malware protection is something else. There's the difference.

No, the Upgrade isn't showing. The number of website warnings has slowed down but it's still every 10 seconds or so. 1182x864 is standard widescreen on my nVidia card and fits my 24" monitor very nicely. 1024x768 is too low for most of the webpages I use and 1280x anything or higher is too small to read a lot of text for apps & webpages. Pop-up boxes like Help-About or other stuff has me crawling on my desk to get closer to read it. As it is, I'm having to Ctrl+ (sometimes twice) to read boxes like this reply box. My eyes aren't what they used to be not so many years ago (cataracts). What I'm trying to say is that with all the other programs, games, and other stuff I have installed on here, only uT is giving me these sort of problems over recent years. Everything else almost always behaves itself without having to go thru hoops just to keep it sensible. That's the point.

Can't get mine anywhere near that close (wish I could). It's better, but not how I'd like it. I can make the left pane bigger, but not smaller and it's still too big with far too much empty space around it. I'm running Win7 Ultimate with a screen rez of 1182x864. I don't have Win 8/10 at all.

Seems like it did an auto-update without me knowing coz the last download was much older than what was running (3.5.0 something). Still had to extract the carrier.exe and had to go thru all the advert blocks again (probably due to the auto-update) so turned that off again. Slightly better display - more room for the entries rather than 30%+ taken up with extra-wide advert space but I still can't resize the display panes like we used to.

Strange, doesn't seem to happen like that here. Every new version I run, I have to reset the options - nothing seems to remain the same as the previous running version. I'll try the latest Stable 3.5.1.44332 from your link and see what happens. I'll still have to reboot for the newer hosts entries. It's a pain.

My hosts file has hundreds of entries that have accumulated over the years but as fast as I add them, uT is delivering even more new ones. As for tweaking some entries, it does seem a shame that all new uT installs reset most of these to poke adverts at us and we have to go thru them all over again. It gets tiresome and annoying keep doing it. Why does uT keep resetting them on every new install?? Perhaps there should be an option to store such entries elsewhere (INI file??) rather than having them ebedded within the program. Add the fact I can't move/reseize the program panes makes the display totally crap these days. Even worse now that we can't just copy the EXE over the old one and just run it like we used to. I don't see why we have to extract the real program from the installer to stop this ludicrous behaviour; there should be different download options for this (installer and program only). The whole uT experience is getting worse with every new release, both beta and stable versions.

The problem I get is the more recent the version, the more and more malicious website [blocked] warnings I get from Malware Bytes with the advertising uT is trying to deliver. When I run it now, my screen barely spends a second without a pop-up being on the screen until I exit uT. Which is why I download what I want and run rather than leaving stuff seeding; it's waay to intrusive when it runs. I realise this is not what torrent sharing is all about and I'm ashamed to admit to such selfish practices. That's why I'm seriously thinking of back-tracking to an earlier version (less warnings).

I certainly wouldn't want any sort of browser-style client - I'll stick with the stand-alone version. My version is quite old (3.5.1 b44321) but the one thing that they seem to have ignored is the type of adverts they serve up. I don't mind adware if the product does what I want it to do. But the last few beta releases I've used over the last couple of years have sent my Malware Bytes into a frenzy with "Malicious Website Blocked" constantly popping up while uT is running. It's definitely uT because as soon as I stop it, the pop-ups stop. Fair enough if you have ad-supported software but at least be mindful of the quality of what you serve up. I'm seriously thinking of going back to an earlier version of uT or even a different client.

Tried getting the new 3.5.0 and all I get is "no matching uuid" And like the two previous posters - UT just dies a startup. Tried going right back to 3.4.2 something - it won't install Was running ok earlier today. Now I can't run it or install it at all no matter what I try..

Best advice I can give to anyone in any situation: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

So... at your max you'll get 60Mb/s which is roughly 6MB/s or less in actual payload. Even a cheap~ish SATA drive will quite happily run at that rate. I still wouldn't panic

I've checked several times with them over recent years and they absolutely assure me that torrent (or any other format) traffic is not capped, profiled, shaped, or monitored in any way (unlike many other ISP's) - one of the reasons I chose them in the first place. And seeing as you are suggesting they are capping only the upload, that doesn't make any sense at all. Even less sense because if they capped/profiled torrent traffic like some ISP's do, everything else (all other data packets) would be working normally while torrent traffic got throttled - and that isn't what's happening here. As for the 20KB upload limit, that's because uT (and only uT) seems to swamp my bandwidth to the point that it strangles my internet completely. I can (and do) run other P2P software with no ill effects at all - only uT uploading at anything over 20KB/s kills my internet access. That's why I have to throttle it back to 20KB to be able to surf, read emails and get on forums to post answers. Freenet (more P2P software) is given 100% both ways because it has virtually no impact on my internet even when it's quite busy. CPU usage rarely goes over 5% unless I'm doing some really heavy video editing so the processors are not stressing no matter what uT is doing - even when I restrict it to a single core. Yeah, my screen-shot had to get shrunk because my original pic was nearly 500K and the site only left me something less than 25KB to upload another pic. I guess that's a site issue/limit.

My Disk Cache settings here is all checked except the manual override (enable disk cache, both read and write). I have never suffered disk thrashing, write behind errors, or any nasties at all. In fact, my disk access light barely flashes even on a blistering (for me) download and that's storing it on a terribly ancient, extremely slow, virtually unbuffered 160GB Seagate HD on IDE connection (not even SATA). Unless you're running a very very fast download, I don't think your 2TB drive will even break a sweat saving your torrent data. PS: I run uT on XP SP3 and Win7 Ultimate and only have 3GB of DDR3 Ram installed.

By coincidence rafi, I already had a max of 5 per torrent and had included the transport overhead I tried the 100K upload setting and left it a few minutes. But as you can see from my screen-shot, apart from one peak, it hovers around the 70-80K area and the rate limit is all over the place. I also had to reduce it back to 20K to be able to reply to the thread. Had trouble uploading the pic - hit a limit of 24.72KB??? Daily limit for the forums? Meh! It says only 2.1K left and the pic is sooo small as to be almost unreadable.

If you look at my screen-shot, I'm not downloading anything at all - just seeding. And I'm not pointing at any instability either.... The overhead is fairly constant compared to the payload (up or down) and the network monitor is always showing the same proportionate discrepency compared to what uT says it's using. I don't doubt the figures that uT displays or those of the network monitor either. Both could be quite correct because 1) uT almost certainly has no idea of (and therefore cannot calculate and include) the OS specific overhead and 2) the network monitor doesn't give a monky's who or what is using the ethernet port, it just measures what is going through it and which way it's going. It just seems obvious to me that those of us not on optical cable (that would be a good proportion of us here in the UK) which may well allow a more balanced/independant upstream and downstream speeds where the numbers match more closely like yours do. Unfortunately, my experience does not match yours and I don't personally know anyone running on a fibre optical connection to make any sort of comparison. My friend who lives just down the road (3 doors away) gets similar results as mine although his ISP is British Telecom and his lump of copper wire goes to the same telephone pole as mine and will go through the same network of cables, muxes, junction boxes etc right to the local exchange and that's where the interface is supplied/owned by the two different companies. From that, I conclude that my experience is not limited to my particular ISP. If I allow 30KB/s upload, even when not downloading, my whole internet experience grinds to a halt (and everyone else on my intranet too) - so I have to cap the uploads at 20KB or I just can't surf or login to get emails. It's as simple as that. Strangely, when not running uT, I can send a file at a very decent speed (considering how crap it is) and still surf without much of a hiccup. However, uT seems to swamp my connection if I let it upload at anything much more than 20KB; downloads don't seem to hit it anywhere near as badly even when running at almost max speed. That's than oddity that I just can't explain.

It's interesting you should say that rafi, but looking at what a network monitor shows and what uT shows as traffic seem to disagree by quite a considerable margin. In the beginning, the uT traffic cap behaves itself and the payload is usually just under the cap. After a while (in my screen-shot, it's been active for almost 90 hours) the payload creeps up to beyond the cap for a significant part of the time. In my running of uT, my upload cap is set at 10KB when downloading and 20KB when only seeding (my upload speed is really crap). As you can see in my screen-shot, my upload payload is always above my 20KB cap. With the overhead (showing), it is running at almost 24KB consistently (rose to almost 27KB at one point and that's not an isolated incident) - that's almost 20% above my cap and around 15% of my payload (anyone know why? A bug maybe??) Anyways, at the point of screen capture, I hit a dip (presumably uT's traffic managment?) it shows the upload payload at 19KB but with the overhead it's around 22KB. Now compare that with the network monitor figures at the same time - Up: 25KB, Down: 7.1KB. That's a 6KB/s difference in what uT says it's using for itself. If you count the overhead, it's only 3KB. I know my maths is rusty in this tired old brain but that is about 12% above what UT is saying for usage; when you include the overhead and compared to the actual payload (the sort of thing people tend to use for calculations) it comes out at over 30% above uT's transfer figure for total net traffic. That would be down to OS transport layer wrappings as well as other packet wrappers needed just to shunt the payload data from A to B. Simple 8 bits per byte??? Nope, it's more like 10.5 bits per byte to include total traffic calculations - and that's just one side of the equation. Considering most people's ISP's aren't going to give away free speed, if they say 20Mb/s or 40Mb/s etc, that's usually the absolute best under ideal test conditions. The most common complaint amongst users is that they don't actually get the speeds advertised. I don't know how it runs in the US or anywhere else, but the ISP I use here in the UK, anything uploading compounds anything downloading and vice-versa. I have a 10Mb ADSL2 line and if I don't seed anything I can pretty much hit 1MB/s (usually 990+Kb/s or thereabouts). If I seed, that hits my download speeds proportionately. In other words, my upload speeds come out of the same total I/O internet pot (10Mb/s) that my download speeds come from - they are not independant. My speeds (measured by the usual Speedtest) tend to be around 9.7 Mb down and barely 1Mb up. If I send a file (upload) at almost my max (1Mb), my best down speed seems to max out at around 8.6 Mb. Maybe they do things differently elsewhere but that's how it works with my ISP here (Orange, or EE as it's now known) - hence the low upload cap. I've tried allowing 30KB but it kills anything else on the 'net (all websites and emails fail to connect) Apart from which, I can shift a decimal point much easier in my head than knowing my 8x table beyond 8x12!

Nice one rafi This is something a lot of people are getting confused with - bits and Bytes. Your formula is somewhat simplistic but illustrates the point nicely. Quite simply, unless otherwise advertised, internet speeds sold by ISP's are in Kilo(K) or Mega(M) bit speeds. uT settings and some speed tests show in Byte speeds. From my ancient days when 1200 baud was considered fast (yeah, I know, I'm really really old) when I was writing bespoke comms software, for each byte sent there are control overheads of start and stop bits as well as parity bits - and that doesn't count packet wrappings, checksums, acks and naks (two varieties), routing info, transport layer info (needed/controlled by the OS) and other such stuff bundled with each and every "lump" sent and received anywhere. On top of all that, there are traffic/monitoring packets used to maintain handshakes and continuity (software transport overhead). Things these days are sooo much faster than the old days (remember teletype dial-up speeds?? ) and people forget just how much is actually happening behind the scenes, but data handling is still very much the same.... just faster. In reality, converting bps (bits per second) to Bps (bytes per second) is a little more complicated than just dividing by 8 bits per byte. What I found was that it's more like counting 10 or 11 bits per byte to encompass most of the transport overhead in sending/receiving info over any sort of remote connection. For simplicity with numbers (doing the maths in your head), a whole order of magnitude (order of 10) isn't too far wrong. And an easy way to remember whether it's bits or bytes you're talking about is: little "b" is bits, bigger "B" is bytes. So, to answer ptammaro's confusion, a 40Mb/s connection is going to yeild around 4MB/s (divide by 10) at absolute max with everything connecting cleanly and running perfectly smoothly. He says he is getting 3.5-4.0 As DreadWing noted, that is pretty much the best he can hope for. A bit too slow??? Nope, not at all. Jeeez, many people would just love a nice clean and almost perfect connection to get pretty much the max from it. Most people would be happy at reaching 90% or more from their max advertised speeds.