Lord Alderaan Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 This is a build-in anti-leech feature of µtorrent.I assume the download speed is restored as soon as your upload is autoset above 6kb/s again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 @aviramof: Try setting bt.auto_ul_min to 6500. If that doesn't help, try 7680. If either help, do tell which one worked. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviramof Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Lord Alderaan the download was restored when i'v cancelled the automatic upload speed and changed it to 8K yes but i'm hopping i wan't have to do thet. Ultima i'll look into it and let you know what happen but it might take some time thanks for your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodlewad Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Could you explain how the Automatic rate in Upload is calculated? I have a 6000/768 connection and frequently see rates like: [11:19:50] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 14.5 kB/sI usually have it set to the default for xxx/768 which is 72Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Alderaan Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Actually. 768 kbps = 92 kb/s 96 kb/s [edit]But indeed the upload limit µtorrent chooses if you set a xx/768 connection is 72kb/s. In this case it leaves 24bk/s room (for browsing and upload required for fast downloading).[/edit]I dunno how exactly it is calculated but if your internet upload is used by other things (computers in your lan / applications on your computer) its posible it will be set to a 'mere' 14,5 kb/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Every bt.auto_ul_interval seconds, µTorrent will sample its upload behavior for bt.auto_ul_sample_window seconds, averaged over bt.auto_ul_sample_average seconds. After finding the average, it multiples it by bt.auto_ul_factor percent and sets that as the upload limit.If the sampled upload rate is lower than bt.auto_ul_min bytes/second or higher than bt.auto_ul_max kilobytes/second (before bt.auto_ul_factor is taken into account), then the upload rate limit is left unchanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviramof Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Ultima for the moment 6500 is working fine hopefully it helped Uplink limit auto adjusted to 6.72 kB/sUplink limit auto adjusted to 10.5 kB/sUplink limit auto adjusted to 6.63 kB/sUplink limit auto adjusted to 10.3 kB/sUplink limit auto adjusted to 6.50 kB/snothing under 6K so far i'll let you know of any changes.thanks for the help:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodlewad Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 In my 1.7 beta 1170 an all versions of µ I have used in the past.µTorrent suggested speed (actual uplink rate / suggested max upload rate)*768 kbps = 72 kb/s1000 kbps = 92 kb/sI'm not using the connection for anything other than torrents for 90% of the time and not much else is going on with my LAN. If I disable Auto I get up rates as high as 60 or more.I see how it is polling now (I got impatient and dropped the interval to 60 seconds, just to see how things work. I'll put it back to 600)[11:53:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 8.95 kB/s[11:54:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 7.66 kB/s[11:55:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 5.48 kB/s[11:56:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 7.25 kB/s[11:57:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 18.3 kB/s[11:58:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 43.9 kB/s[11:58:58] UPnP: Port 53268 is already mapped. Not re-mapping.[11:59:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 11.5 kB/s[12:00:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 32.0 kB/s[12:01:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 52.3 kB/s[12:02:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 55.4 kB/s[12:03:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 50.4 kB/s[12:04:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 54.7 kB/s[12:05:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 51.8 kB/s[12:06:09] Uplink limit auto adjusted to 55.7 kB/sIt needs a more active (high upload demand) torrent I realize. I think I was getting the low 14kB/s b/c there wasn't a demand for any more than that at that instance.When I asked how it calculated I should have been more specific. I should have asked does it do some sort of bandwidth test outside of torrent activity or does it use torrent activity to check. I see now that it uncaps for bt.auto_ul_sample_window seconds and uses that for Automatic Upload speed calculation.If I go into Configuration during the poll window I'll see the rate set to 0, if I go during the non-poll window I see the calculated rate. Neat.*edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeriouxi Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Hi!I couldn't see this mentioned on the updates for the beta version so I'm unsure if this is fixed, but will the .torrent association in Vista be fixed saving you from having to run it as the admin the first time? Also I'm sorry if this has been answered too but will uTorrent bypass the UAC popup every time it's loaded? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviramof Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 6500 don't work in fixing the problem thet the automatic upload reduce the upload speed below 6K and reduce the download speed:Uplink limit auto adjusted to 5.31 kB/sUplink limit auto adjusted to 5.56 kB/strying 7680 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Norton Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 @xeriouxi The .torrent association issues with limited users should be fixed with recent builds. Please let me know if they are not (Don't forget to uninstall old 1.7 versions before installing a new one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANO Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 @xeriouxiYou should just turn off UAC, its not very helpful and extremely annoying.Control Panel\User Accounts and Family Safety\User Accounts\Turn User Account Control On or Off\uncheck "Use User Account Control (UAC) to help protect your computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amonrei Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Yep just turn it off. It almost killed me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightThief Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Greets to devs, users of the awesome client, I'm pretty much addicted to the µ since started using it I have a small request. Can you please parse Opera's torrent client version?Here is screenshot:4 digits after "OP" show Opera build. Don't know what the others mean (if anything)Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Interestingly, I saw the same thing with an Azureus user (AZ25000[RANDOM_STUFF]). The odd part is, other Azureus users' client IDs were parsed properly :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenisCool Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Sometimes I see "µTorrent/1.6.1", but then it is converted to correct "µTorrent 1.6.1"Also, why µTorrent shows "Azureus/2.5.0.4", but not "Azureus 2.5.0.4" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stone Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Ultima, Azureus' peerid is "-AZxxxx-[whatever]" (like many others), while "AZ2500[whatever]" (without dashes) is BitTyrant (some client based on Azureus). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Yah, I know how the Azureus IDs should look like, but I wasn't sure if it was parsing/formatting the ID at least a bit before displaying it. Didn't know the IDs were changed for some of the modified versions, though, so thanks for the info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amc1 Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Just to be slightly more exact - BitTyrant's peer ID starts off with "AZ2500BT" (the BT presumably standing for BitTyrant). Annoyingly, that means that it mentions what version of Azureus it is based on, but not what version of BitTyrant it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Ah, so it was a BitTyrant peer... Yeah, I saw AZ2500BT (didn't know it wasn't part of the random thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Despite its reputation, BitTyrant is really not a worse peer or seed than BitComet. (If anything, it should be a MUCH better seed than BitComet.) Now if it was BitThief on the other hand...ban the sucker now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telflonmail Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 BitTyrant is an experimental version to determine if a tit-for-tat type of bandwidth allocation will be better for the user and/or swarm. What it basically does is attempt to allocate more upload bandwidth to clients that have given it higher download bandwidth.As for 1.7 beta - had a strange issue. I only received 1 node, after about 10 minutes, in DHT when I usually get about 200+. I right clicked and disabled DHT, right clicked again to enable DHT, and it did the (Login) and numbers starting going up. Another application start I had no DHT issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquafx Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 How best to install beta 1170 ?Can I just install over 1.6.1 or do I uninstall ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangix Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 replace the exe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funchords Posted April 14, 2007 Report Share Posted April 14, 2007 > As for 1.7 beta - had a strange issue. I only received 1 node, after about 10 minutes, > in DHT when I usually get about 200+. I right clicked and disabled DHT, right clicked > again to enable DHT, and it did the (Login) and numbers starting going up. Another > application start I had no DHT issue.Should be fixed since build 1167, if this is the duplicate ID issue. The behavior is similar > XP SP2, Server 2003 and Vista (besides Home Basic) are capable of 10 half open > connections. 2000, XP and XP SP1 are capable of something like 65,535 half open > connections (anyway, a really high number, at least what I wrote). I won't blame you at all for writing that, because Microsoft did publish that "fact" regarding this feature in SP2 and other OSs. However, that fact is so badly out of real context and is misleading, that it should be considered false.Connections attempts are serial. They would be limited by the datarate of the network card and the speed of your upload connection -- not to mention that you only have about 3800 ephemeral ports that you can use, and limited memory in both Windows and your NAT device. > The thing is that it > should be higher than that, at least 32 or 64.Why should it be higher than that? When you exceed the outgoing half-open rate of X per second, Windows writes a warning in the log and imposes a limit of X per second. Then it merely delays the connection attempt by the amount necessary to stay within the limit -- no Winsock error is returned to the application due to this delay. This delay should only happen when starting a torrent or getting an announce with a large amount of new peers. With everything except Home Basic, even the largest "simultaneous" attempt might incur a delay of only a few seconds.I am concerned about the new limit of 2 per second on Vista Basic and possible impacts on P2P apps generally. Winsock still shouldn't issue an error when 2 per second is exceeded, but if applications have tiny timeouts, outgoing connection attempts in a newly (re-)started large torrent or after a large announce with peers may be timed out by the application before the SYN packet is actually sent by the network stack. It shouldn't cause a fault, failure, or severe error. Anyway, 2 seems rather draconian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.