Jump to content

3.5.x Beta


TylerW

Recommended Posts

On 3/20/2022 at 1:43 AM, gjm said:

If a check of (any of) the torrents you have is required, that's actually pretty quick.

yeah, the checking isn't what I'm referring to, that does go reasonably fast.  Torrents start as queued seed and emptying that queue is what is ridiculously slow. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, icebox said:

yeah, the checking isn't what I'm referring to, that does go reasonably fast.  Torrents start as queued seed and emptying that queue is what is ridiculously slow. 

I've recently had issues with torrents that come up as 'Stopped' and there is nothing I can do to start them.

Then they'll start of their own accord a while later.

Not seen that before, after years of using uTorrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rafi said:

Maybe increasing the number of allowed active torrents can help?

I thought of that. :)

6 active torrents, but 20 allowed. I checked active upload/download settings, bandwidth, and so on.

If I have exceeded max active torrents in the past, I've normally (I think) been able to 'Force Start' a further torrent, and the application stops processing a previously active one. I even wondered if it was a 'feature' that came up when there where no peers available, but that doesn't appear to be the case either - one stopped torrent had 6 peers and2 seeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, icebox said:

rafi I've seen this for a long time, don't know when it started, but I'm using 46206 at the moment.  Is ther ea later stable build?

 

Check out SergeyQA's post from March 18. That's the build in Rafi's video. Obviously it experimental.

Regarding your problem, have you tried moving the best seeded torrents up the queue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The "standard" link for "release" [not beta] also goes to a new release, said to be 3.5.5.46276, but that exe is not branded normally and lists its version as 3.5.0.0.  It does have a date of 3jun22, and its size is 1726 kb.

Major Geeks also links to this "new stable release".

I did not try it, seems fishy to me...size and vers num info just seems off somehow...

Edited by javacatpaul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:  46286 beta

I have noticed that this new version takes a very long time to exit [if it exits at all!], after several minutes the parent process still hasn't exited.  Something changed.  I only have about 40 jobs in my list, prev version only took about 10-15 seconds to exit-out completely.  I do have "exit cleanly" selected, always have.  Anyone else notice this??

Yeah, on last test run it never exited at all, parent process and one child are still running after 10 minutes, it won't exit.  BUG...

FWIW  W7 x64...

Think I will revert...

Yeah, 46248 works fine, takes 2 secs for child proccesses to exit, another 5 or so for main process to exit, all clean.  Gonna say 286 needs checking...

 

Edited by javacatpaul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2022 at 9:39 PM, SergeyQA said:

This build is safe.3.5.5.0.0.0 is just downloader, which pulls current stable and installs it. It shows the correct build number during the installation as soon as actual installer downloaded.

Any changelog?

 

Edited by rafi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, javacatpaul said:

re:  46286 beta

I have noticed that this new version takes a very long time to exit [if it exits at all!], after several minutes the parent process still hasn't exited.  Something changed.  I only have about 40 jobs in my list, prev version only took about 10-15 seconds to exit-out completely.  I do have "exit cleanly" selected, always have.  Anyone else notice this??

Yeah, on last test run it never exited at all, parent process and one child are still running after 10 minutes, it won't exit.  BUG...

FWIW  W7 x64...

Think I will revert...

Yeah, 46248 works fine, takes 2 secs for child proccesses to exit, another 5 or so for main process to exit, all clean.  Gonna say 286 needs checking...

 

I'm not having any issues at all (so far). 46248 would occasionally lock-up for me, requiring Task Manager to force a shutdown. 46286 hasn't (yet) done that.

And it closes, for me, as I'd expect - quickly and cleanly.

Edit: The whole experience feels more 'slick'.

Edited by gjm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gjm said:

I'm not having any issues at all (so far). 46248 would occasionally lock-up for me, requiring Task Manager to force a shutdown. 46286 hasn't (yet) done that.

And it closes, for me, as I'd expect - quickly and cleanly.

Edit: The whole experience feels more 'slick'.

+1. Seems that with this build  - the GUI is responsive all the time and is not freezing, disc / disc-cache are  not overloading, and the DL speed is maxing my connection rate... Good work, devs!

https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB59F8 https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB59F9

 

No shutdown/exit delays as well.

 

 

Edited by rafi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rafi said:

+1. Seems that with this build  - the GUI is responsive all the time and is not freezing, disc / disc-cache are  not overloading, and the DL speed is maxing my connection rate... Good work, devs!

https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB59F8 https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB59F9

 

No shutdown/exit delays as well.

Yep - this is a good one. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's repeatable for me, hangs every time and must use taskmngr to kill.  I'd imagine it has something to do with graceful_shutdown.

FWIW, these are my shutdown params:

     bt.graceful_shutdown  true

    bt.shutdown_tracker_timeout  15

    bt.shutdown_upnp_timeout    5

as far as smoother GUI etc, never noticed it was bad before, seems the same to me with 286.  But I never have a lot of jobs, 40 or so is max. 

And still using W7,  I hate the ribbon...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, javacatpaul said:

Well, it's repeatable for me, hangs every time and must use taskmngr to kill.  I'd imagine it has something to do with graceful_shutdown.

FWIW, these are my shutdown params:

     bt.graceful_shutdown  true

    bt.shutdown_tracker_timeout  15

    bt.shutdown_upnp_timeout    5

as far as smoother GUI etc, never noticed it was bad before, seems the same to me with 286.  But I never have a lot of jobs, 40 or so is max. 

And still using W7,  I hate the ribbon...

 

Those are all - the defaults (used here too).  You can try with my settings (@ my sig) as reference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, javacatpaul said:

as far as smoother GUI etc, never noticed it was bad before, seems the same to me with 286.  But I never have a lot of jobs, 40 or so is max. 

I had shutdown issues before, but not now. That said, this is an almost 'clean' install - no issues with 40+ torrents.

I'd not have said the previous versions had any GUI issues, but it feels smoother now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gjm said:

I had shutdown issues before, but not now. That said, this is an almost 'clean' install - no issues with 40+ torrents.

I'd not have said the previous versions had any GUI issues, but it feels smoother now.

Do you "install" the updates as standalone (not in appdata, beside an older settings.dat )?

It should NOT do any "install" and just replace the exe. I think it fails to go that way...

 

Edited by rafi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rafi said:

Do you "install" the updates as standalone (not in appdata, beside an older settings.dat )?

It should NOT do any "install" and just replace the exe. I think it fails to go that way...

This time was a bit different. I'd been running 46248 without installing it, following a computer rebuild - as an almost portable implementation. It had the settings stored, of course.

I was lazy with the new version and just ran it as a installer, then deleted the old files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I am having problems.

Selected a dozen or so magnets. They open in uTorrent and typically the dialog box populates after 5 seconds to a minute or so. (Some take longer, some are instant.) That's all normal.

But I am unable to start the download process. I click on the 'OK' box, and while the button shows being pressed, nothing happens. I'm unable to select/deselect individual files, and cannot edit the folder name.

The 'Cancel' button does not work,and neither does the 'X' in the top right corner of the dialog box.

I can close uTorrent by right-clicking the icon in the system tray, but the dialog boxes persist for some time.

Edit 1: Reopening uTorrent shows the magnets are now in the Labels > Hidden area; all are Stopped and they will not start.

So, I have deleted these torrents, and downloaded .torrent files. If I select a single fie, it opens and can be manipulated as usual. However, if I select multiple .torrent files and open them all, I have the same issue experienced before.

Edit 2: And now I find that using 'Alt-F', 'X' to close uTorrent didn't work. I was able to using the 'File' menu to select Exit.

Edited by gjm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, gjm said:

if I select multiple .torrent files and open them all, I have the same issue

Multi Select where exactly? "Open" how?

I think missing "Alt" menu-shortcuts is a bug... But has started before this build...

Edited by rafi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...