A basic question involving Queued pieces and Hash errors

[z9999]

When I run torrents I encounter a great many hash errors, often 40% of the total DL. All I have been able to determine is that the problem exixts using different computers, different applications, and with or without a router connected. I've had all the ISP provided hardware replaced and at this point feel confident the problem is external and beyond my ability to eliminate.

When running torrents I end up with uTorrent banning a good many of the peers as they show involved in the occurring hash errors, and in many cases they are the peers who have been sending the most data to me. Watching closely, I can see that often when a piece fails hash 2 or more peers have their count increased, and I suspect that only one of them actually was responsible for the hash error. In the end it appears that most of the peers who have been giving to me are eliminated making it difficult to complete the download without re-enabling them all, and then encountering numerous hash errors again.

It would be nice to be able to selectively re-enable a banned peer you suspect may have been banned in error. And another thing I see is that I have many incomplete pieces queued, often over 50 where I received just a few blocks of data, or that are just shy of completing. Watching as they complete I notice my hash errors usually increase as they do and as they have had several peers who have contributed, several peers get charged with the hash error. I would like to know if there is a way to limit the number of pieces queued so that fewer pieces can accumulate corrupt data? Currently when I have accumulated a large number of hash errors I find that after several peers have been banned, it helps to stop and restart uTorrent and then force recheck the torrent discarding all partial pieces and then resume running the torrent, but this discards many mB's of data as so many pieces are incomplete in queue. A smaller queue would reduce the amount discarded each time this becomes a necessary process.

Is there a way to limit the size of the queue currently? If so I have not been able to find it. The reason for wanting to do this is it appears that the peer(s) responsible for the hash errors often have contributed small amounts to many pieces and if left to continue running other peers get banned erronously as they contribute and finish the pieces.

[Firon]

It's probably just a poisoned torrent. Stop downloading illegal torrents.

[z9999]

Great answer, however it occurs with all downloads, updates not using bittorrent, Linux torrents, which should in my opinion have no reason to be poisoned. The direct downloads, such as system updates, etc. often require several attempts to get a good copy.

Added: I suspect the routing involved is more related than the content or peers involved. In my case I seem to get the best transfer from peers who are closer to me, such as Japan or Singapore.

Anyone else have any helpful comments?

[Firon]

Oh, if even Linux torrents do that... Hmm. Were all the PCs on the same ISP?

Did you try using Protocol Encryption set to Forced and unchecked Legacy connections?

[z9999]

I have but one connection available where I live, 2 way satellite, and all PC's I've tested with must use the same connection. I use protocol encryption, and have tried both options involving legacy connections. From all I have been able to determine the problem is worst during peak traffic hours, which forces me to work during the lowest traffic periods whenever possible, but sometimes I must work during the peak periods and when I do so it appears that I accumulate some corrupt data packets which show up later during the non-peak hours. I would just like to put a limit on the pieces queued if at all possible.

[z9999]

Moving away from the "Manners sticky", I'm not looking to create a discussion, but instead am trying to get an answer as to how, or if, it possible to limit the number of pieces being queued. If it is not possible then my next best solution is for us, to create our torrents in smaller pieces so that less is discarded when using force re-check. Sorry I can't be more explicit, and am basically just looking for a yes or no answer to what I would like to do.

[Firon]

You can't.

Try setting it to Forced, with legacy incoming unchecked, and restart all your torrents. You might as well turn off DHT.

I'm surprised that corrupt packets are getting through, though. Presumably your satellite modem is mangling the packet, like D-Link routers do when DMZ is turned on.

Your only solution is to get a better modem that doesn't mangle the packets. Or ask if your ISP can turn off any feature that would cause it.

[z9999]

OK, that was the answer I was looking for. As for settings, they are are you suggest already, and am not using DHT as it is of no use in our situation. I have changed out the satellite modem, and eliminated the router which appears to not have been causing any problems. After having the ISP come and check out everything it appears that the problem is external and the packets are being mangled elsewhere. The only thing we can't rid is the invisible proxy and I'm not sure if that might be involved or not, and if so we will just have to live with it, government rules.

Thanks for your help.

[Firon]

So, it's the proxy itself that's mangling the packets? That's too bad then.

By changing modems, you mean you tried a different model, right? Not the same one. While I sort of doubt it's the modem's settings, it might be. I think it's just the proxy, though.

[z9999]

The only modem available for this setup is the IpStar IPX5100, and the original one I had was definitely defective as I was being dropped and having to reconnect as many as 50 times per day. The new one has been connected without fail for over a month now.

As for the proxy, it is only my suspicion that it is in some way responsible, but it does appear that I have less problems when the peers are geographically closer to me, and the proxy offering no protective value to me, appears only to allow the government to limit my access to information they prefer I not access, and I'm told that it is to stop traffic to porn or some political sites. Some sites that are blocked I have been able to find other means of accessing and have found them containing no information that could be of harm to the government, but they are blocked none-the-less.

One last question, is there an on going thread related to hash fails and/or piece queuing that I can become involved in? either actively or passively? I would like to keep up with anything related to this as someone may eventually come up with something useful.

Thanks, and I'll stop adding new posts now.