dht wasting bandwidth when disabled

[DutchDude]

WOW only wastes 0.33 KB/s .......... pffff to worry about that....... guess you're still using 56 Kbit modems or so....

Besides you can allways go back to using Azareus if you like it more.... i for my part think this whole discussion is a bit pointless cause the difference is negligable...

I still think this is the best client around.... despite of the 0.33 KB/s extra bandwidth

[Animorc]

If, like Firon says, it makes a difference whether the torrents are paused or stopped, my numbers might be too high, since I only paused my torrents when I was making the screendump. I didn't want to stop them completely.

[Ultima]

@ScubaSteve: I haven't noticed as much bandwidth usage due to DHT as you have, and neither has anyone else in the forum (so far at least). It seems like the problem's on your end, and not µTorrent's...

[ScubaSteve]

WOW only wastes 0.33 KB/s .......... pffff to worry about that....... guess you're still using 56 Kbit modems or so....

did u actually bother reading the full thread ? im actually on a 1Mb/256Kb line but i find 3kB/s unacceptable bandwidth usage for it.

It doesn't use 3KB/s of bandwidth, you're measuring it incorrectly.

no offence but i think ur just getting too stressed out. i know what ive seen, if i hadnt then i wouldnt had made this thread in the first place so just cool off.

i had two torrents seeding, both of which had the private flag enabled and so dht was disabled.up was showing 3.1 kB/s and down was showing 1.9kB/s 147 peers it stayed like this for over an hour.

some of u seem to be taking this as me basically saying that µTorrent is crap, this is not the case. i think µTorrent is a great client even if its not quite as efficient as azureus on a couple of things. its still in development and can only get better, but i just thought that i should point this out. for now ill just use azureus if i need to use dht for something.

[Firon]

How can you measure the DHT bandwidth use while you're seeding?

I would also like to mention that part of the downstream you saw was BT protocol overhead. And if you were measuring it outside of µTorrent, it includes all that plus TCP overhead (and believe me, 150 connections generates a bit).

I'm seeding at 53 KB/s and using 4-5KB/s down in mostly TCP overhead. My upstream is generating 4-5 KB/s in overhead too. Turning off DHT lowered this value by about .3 down, and .3-.5 up.

[bkman]

Fairly simple test for folks that could resolve this:

Stop all torrents, disable scraping, but leave DHT enabled, then restart the client and leave it for a period of time (like an hour). Do the exact same thing with Azureus and at the end of the period take down the (total: x KB) figures in utorrent, and the Statistics -> Distributed Database -> Transport Details -> Bytes column in Azureus respectively.

Post here and compare.

[Ultima]

some of u seem to be taking this as me basically saying that µTorrent is crap, this is not the case. i think µTorrent is a great client even if its not quite as efficient as azureus on a couple of things. its still in development and can only get better, but i just thought that i should point this out. for now ill just use azureus if i need to use dht for something.

Hm, I didn't get the impression that you were saying that µTorrent was crap O.o

The fact remains that no one else seems to be experiencing as much overhead in DHT bandwidth as you, so it still *seems* like the problem's on your end. I agree, while this is still being sorted out, you should just stick to Azureus for DHT stuff =]

[NiteShdw]

Perhaps to relieve the anxiety in this thread, the devs could include some way of indicating the amount of bandwidth being used by the DHT system. For example, the "TRACKER" area of the General tab has a lot of whitespace that would be converted to showing some DHT info perhaps? Or even a separate DHT tab.

I personally, don't care all that much, but obviously some people do.

[ScubaSteve]

did what bkman suggested. over 1 hr period µTorrent up total 1.5MB down 714KB - Azureus up 634KB down 486KB. either way ill stick with azureus for dht stuff for the moment, im sure that given time it will improve as ludde and vurlix did have to reverse engineer it which i give them alot of credit for.

[Firon]

NiteShdw, it's already there, and I mentioned it twice in this thread.

go to the logger, click Dump DHT Buckets, and scroll to the bottom of the logger window.

you can also see how many torrents your client is tracking.

[02:01:33] Recieved: 297150 requests (31159652 bytes), 68417 replies (20264930 bytes), 12055 invalid (2237928 bytes)

[02:01:33] Sent: 174234 requests (16912839 bytes), 297150 replies (69704826 bytes)

in 37 hours. my client tracks about 300 torrents on average, whch I guess means I was elected as a supernode.

What is there to improve? You used on average .4 KB/s up, .2 KB/s down, that's insignificant...

[ScubaSteve]

i have seen it with my own two eyes. sitting there using 3kB/s bandwidth for about an hour. compared to the azureus version of dht it is extremley inefficient especially for the miniscule amount of peers that are on the mainline dht compared to az dht. hopefully az dht gets implemented sometime in the future cause id hate to see azureus have to implement a lesser form of dht just to shut ppl up about theirs not being "standard"

for now i will stick with azureus for torrents that need dht.

[Animorc]

I can confirm that µTorrent DHT is actually using more bandwidth. Might have been plain coincidence on that screendump. Check a bandwidth table here:

http://www.animorc.com/utorrent/dht.html

This monitoring was created while having 14 active torrents in µTorrent of which 4 allowed DHT and 2 downloading torrents in Azureus, both without the privateflag.

I was filtering the network activity on the UDP protocol on the different ports for µTorrent and Azureus and made sure that no torrent had a UDP tracker.

If some people prefer graphs, I made two of them:

[NiteShdw]

NiteShdw, it's already there, and I mentioned it twice in this thread.

go to the logger, click Dump DHT Buckets, and scroll to the bottom of the logger window.

you can also see how many torrents your client is tracking.

[02:01:33] Recieved: 297150 requests (31159652 bytes), 68417 replies (20264930 bytes), 12055 invalid (2237928 bytes)

[02:01:33] Sent: 174234 requests (16912839 bytes), 297150 replies (69704826 bytes)

in 37 hours. my client tracks about 300 torrents on average, whch I guess means I was elected as a supernode.

What is there to improve? You used on average .4 KB/s up, .2 KB/s down, that's insignificant...

Yes, I know about that. That only gives total stats. I was under the impression they wanted to be able to see actual calculated official "per second" stats

[Thehound]

I'm new to utorrent but it's up to you to decide whether DHT is worth it to you to have running and if it's appropriate in the case of private trackers. Disabling per torrent is not enough to even cut bandwidth usage by much because it still must consult the Distributed tracker(many cases it consists of many peers with same client as well as centralized database) for new peers and keep track of their online status. I think what you are talking about is negligable but you need to disable the whole database, not just on active torrents. Trust me, Azureus uses more bandwidth. I am a reformed long time Azureus user. I got fed up with its bugs and ever increasing resource hogging on each new version. utorrent is a relief for me, trust me. It's not pretty but gets the job done economically. I hardly see the point of complaining about this with all DHT must accomplish. And LOL person who sent him to Azureus-that will use his bandwidth as well as memory. Well congrats people on this client, despite my badmouthing certain things about Azureus, I thought it was the best client until I found this. I'll see you again.

[Firon]

Why is this in found bugs? O_o;

[Thehound]

I think this guy thought the bandwidth the DHT used was a bug, when actually was quite reasonable. Otherwise I'm shrugging my shoulders.

[Firon]

Noticed this is an oooooooooold thread, that's why. Moved it now though.

[Thehound]

My bad, I stumbled upon this thread in Google because I was looking for info on what a feature does in this client and decided to reply. I'll make your job easier and look next time.

[Firon]

That's okay, old threads are here for a reason, for people to post to (instead of making new ones). It's always good to see someone searching before posting lol

By the way, the DHT bandwidth cap is automatic, based on your max measured upload speed / 16 I believe, minimum of 512B/s max of 8192B/s, but you can set one manually (dht.rate in Advanced)

[mreemabrown]

First off, I am Amazed that anyone like ScubaSteve and in this article referred to as just Steve...has the audacity to come to UTorrent Forums and try to spread drivel thinking he knows what the heck he is talking about.

1) DHT requires Bandwidth, Even when not sharing files, it stays in touch with the network by sending and receiving packets...that is the law of everything Internet. ***NOTE TO STEVE: When you understand that the rest will make a lot more sense. Anything you WANT, must first be Requested. Anything you are sharing Costs you Bandwidth.

2) UTorrent Blows Azuereus out of the water in resource use. When we are talking about "Resource use" we are not usually speaking of Bandwidth as it is really not important, most of us have high speed accounts with generous alotments of Bandwidth. If you ARE worried about it TURN DHT OFF!!!!!. We are usually speaking of Memory, Processor Requests, etc. And yes in the case of UTorrent it's Resource Use is Vastly superior to other clients as it is a Light Program. ***Note to Steve: I am not talking the ACTUAL weight of the program because it doesn't really have a measurable weight per say as it is a program.

3) I can't believe you are whining about the tiny bit of bandwidth you are talking about. HAHAHA, Ahem...sorry....I'm okay (lol)

4) Reverse Engineering? You heard a big word and had to use it? Do you know what it is? Do you know WHO R.E.'d it? Why? For Who or What Entity? To what End? Do you have proof? If not Kindly Shut The Heck Up...Or learn more before spewing shite from your fingertips to try to make yourself sound cool or something. The real geeks think you sound stupid, and you are teaching the noobs something WRONG!!! Learn Or Shut Up...PLEASE....and Thank You.

5)There is a LOT of pertinent and well researched material laid out for you Steve. The vast majority in this forum are far beyond you and if you want to learn...shut up...and LISTEN!!! They have given you the info...now THINK....

6)I am so sick of people with tiny brains spewing garbage just to see their name in print. STEVE!!! If you love Azureus Go USE IT and Kindly destroy your uTorrent as you don't deserve it's wonderfulness....

Anyway ScubaSteve you are on the right track but worrying about things you don't need to. Learn to Listen so you can Listen to Learn....

***WOW Just noticed how old a post it was, but hey maybe Steve will come back and read up...Glad he decided to stop talking anyway....lol....Yes Old Posts are here for a reason...

[Switeck]

Context is everything, so don't be so quick to judge and blame.

In late 2005, Azureus' DHT probably WAS better. uTorrent clients were far fewer in number and there were issues with its DHT implementation.

Now with Peer Exchange, if any Azureus clients discover uTorrent clients (or vice-versa) somehow, then the different DHT networks can be linked together through that.