Poor performance compared to Azureus.

[urbanriot]

I recently switched over to µTorrent after being a long time Azureus user. I'm on a cable modem that generally recieves around 300kB/s - 400kB/s through Azureus (sometimes higher on really popular torrents). My upload is unfortunately capped at 60kB/s.

My system is a Pentium D 2.8 w/2GB RAM running Win XP Pro SP2 and I ran a comparitive test tonight between µTorrent and Azurues.

I took three popular torrents of the evening (which I snag every Sunday) and loaded them into µTorrent. After an hour, my peak downloading was 132 kB/s, and the rates generally hovered between 90 - 120.

I then shut µTorrent down and loaded these three torrents into Azureus and after an hour they were all completed, with peak downloading 452 kB/s, and the rates generally between 360 - 440.

I then took the third and fourth hours to redo the tests and recieved similar results.

I'm quite pleased to use µTorrent as it only uses 5mb of RAM, versus Azureus' javaw.exe sucking of 120mb on my system and it seems to be just as stable.

However, I don't understand the differences in speeds between the two programs and I'm sure it's a case of "tweaking" the setting... and I've tried all suggested configurations on the forums and µTorrent still provides poor performance.

I don't have any issues with my firewall as I'm directly forwarding a set port (6882), which isn't conflicting with other software, to my µTorrent system. Also, despite recent evidence the TCP/IP patch is unnecessary, I applied it and increased my limit to 100. Azurues worked fine without the tcpip.sys file being patched anyhow.

Knowing my system and setup, can anyone suggest or guide me in achieving better results with µTorrent? Perhaps if someone can tell me exactly what to set software settings to I can give this another go...

[asmodai]

I am still tweaking my settings after migrating from Azureus to uTorrent.

For some reason it seems as if uTorrent doesn't make as much peer connections as Azureus does (which I think I remember being an option).

Also I found that at times uTorrent holds peers even though no upload or download is active towards these peers for minutes. Is that normal for the bittorrent protocol?

[NiteShdw]

μTorrent disconnects from peers that have been inactive for over 5 minutes. You can enable a column in the peer tab to see how long a peer has been inactive.

You can set the total number of peer connections in the Preferences.

[urbanriot]

Well, I tried playing with peer settings last night, and I've played with every setting in the program today and am still unable to achieve Azureus like performance.

What should I set global maximum number of connections, and maximum number of peers to, with the hardware I have? Does a value of zero in those spots = unlimited? Would it be bad to have unlimited?

[lament]

Well, I tried playing with peer settings last night, and I've played with every setting in the program today and am still unable to achieve Azureus like performance.

it's been said countless times in the forum - comparing bittorrent clients for speed is silly because you're not connecting to the same peers every time and there's other factors involved.

What should I set global maximum number of connections, and maximum number of peers to, with the hardware I have? Does a value of zero in those spots = unlimited? Would it be bad to have unlimited?

too many connections can choke your bandwidth.

[urbanriot]

it's been said countless times in the forum - comparing bittorrent clients for speed is silly because you're not connecting to the same peers every time and there's other factors involved.

I find that form of logic itself to be "silly". By this reasoning, all bittorrent clients have the same inherent opportunity to download at the same speeds, and that's not true at all.

Further, I ran my comparisons one after the other and rotated them, so unless by complete coincidence the "internet" was running slower during µTorrent tests, the software is downloading considerably slower than Azureus. About 200 kB/s.

too many connections can choke your bandwidth.

Then, with my above posted info, how many connections should I be using to achieve the same speeds I'm achieving in Azureus. How many is "too many" ?

I'm not attacking the software, I'm trying to get some ideas on settings I should be using so I can achieve the same results as Azureus.

[Firon]

The Mainline client doesn't use more than 55 connections. I wouldn't recommend using more than 100 per torrent with your speed. Possibly lower.

[lament]

I find that form of logic itself to be "silly". By this reasoning, all bittorrent clients have the same inherent opportunity to download at the same speeds, and that's not true at all.

how is saying that comparing two bittorrent clients for speed is silly = they have the same opportunity to download at the same speeds? I already said that there's too many factors involved to compare straight across.

Further, I ran my comparisons one after the other and rotated them, so unless by complete coincidence the "internet" was running slower during µTorrent tests, the software is downloading considerably slower than Azureus. About 200 kB/s.

you're not connecting to the same peers every time, and even if you do, they may not be transferring the exact same amount that they were before. speeds change every second depending on what their client on the other end is sending out.

what if right when you switched back to Azureus, someone lifted their 20kb/sec cap on the torrent and now they're at 60. suddenly your torrent speed increases. that's why I'm saying - you can't compare like that. there's too many factors involved.

Then, with my above posted info, how many connections should I be using to achieve the same speeds I'm achieving in Azureus. How many is "too many" ?

trial and error.

here's mine, and I get upwards of 500kb/sec on fast torrents. again, it all depends on the torrent.

[urbanriot]

Making the changes you've suggested i'm now getting between 180 kB/s - 250 kB/s, which is considerably better than last night and earlier today.

While I had similar settings in Azureus to what I had setup in µTorrent, I'm sure the two programs don't work similar enough to transition...

I'm going to assume that the settings were too high and throttling downloads. I'd like to find a good balance so I can have the same speeds as Azureus, but it's hard to quantify... thanks for the suggestions.

[lament]

Making the changes you've suggested i'm now getting between 180 kB/s - 250 kB/s, which is considerably better than last night and earlier today.

While I had similar settings in Azureus to what I had setup in µTorrent, I'm sure the two programs don't work similar enough to transition...

everyone has their reasons for using one over the other.

Here's why I'm using µTorrent and not Azureus anymore:

1) no Java

2) less memory usage (because of the java)

3) skinnable UI

[urbanriot]

Here's why I'm using µTorrent and not Azureus anymore:

1) no Java

2) less memory usage (because of the java)

3) skinnable UI

I'm pleased with the no Java (although this doesn't really impact me, since I access Java web pages anyhow and need Java on my system), however I'm very pleased with the less memory usage. CPU utilization seems to be a little lower as well.

I hit 400 kB/s a while ago, so I'm still playing with things to achieve maximum performance. I've found some solid torrents with many seeds / peers that are helping tweak things.

I have no doubt I'm going to stick with µTorrent, but I'd like to see it perform as well or better than my old software in terms of download speeds

[BloodStaindHurricane]

lament, whay is your "max number of connected peers per torrent" set so low?

what's your connection speed?

[lament]

lament, whay is your "max number of connected peers per torrent" set so low?

what's your connection speed?

µTorrent's default is what.. 50?

i'm on 4-5MB cable. I usually kick that up if I'm not getting the speeds I'm after.

but i'm not complaining.. 500kb/sec isn't too bad.

[BloodStaindHurricane]

I got to looking at mine and it was set to 200, which is why I was asking.

[Firon]

it's not "too low", it's fine. like I said, mainline uses 55, and in the protocol specifications they say that raising the number too high can only make things WORSE. More connections != more speed. Unless you got 10MBit with at least 1 up BloodStaind, that number's probably too high

[BloodStaindHurricane]

it's not "too low", it's fine. like I said, mainline uses 55, and in the protocol specifications they say that raising the number too high can only make things WORSE. More connections != more speed. Unless you got 10MBit with at least 1 up BloodStaind, that number's probably too high

thanx. That's what I was wondering. Gonna try some things out.

[Firon]

Since you apparently have slower than 10/1, experiment between 75 and 150, see what number in that range works best for you

[BloodStaindHurricane]

Well, my speeds werent exactly bad at all on private trackers with the 200 setting. I just saw lament's settings and got to wondering if maybe I am restricting it from doing better than it is. Right now, I've got it set to 70 and am watching a particular torrent on a public tracker. The speeds arent that different than when I had 200 set, but this is one of *those torrents* that isnt the best to experiment with. When I start another well-seeded one from a good tracker, I'll pay close attention and try that range that you recommended. I'm on a 3Mbps connection, btw.

[yusufjee]

The seeders/leechers + Client argument is totally blown out of context by many a user. I think most of people are still speaking from an earlier documentation posted on some website when bittorrent was in its early stages. A Lot has changed and we are all glad, i think its time to update our knowledgebase. The best way to start is Slyck.com forums and Zeropaid.com forums.

Why i say seeders/peers + Client argument is blown out of proportions is because a client has a significant part to play in how much speed and in what time you get to that speed. The popular clients like azureus, ABC, bittornado have a very clear speed advantage over utorrent. Just dismissing the argument by saying it all depends on how many seeders/peers you are connected to is not intelligent. If a person is making an argument that he is getting 200KBps less speed compared to other client and providing evidence, he is offcourse right. Many a times its not really upto how many or for how long you are connected to.

utorrent is still a baby, a client born yesterday and at merely 110KB it has its obvious defficiencies but it will no doubt get better. It has in my opinion very very very few options to tweak with compared to other big time clients in my case it is Bitspirit. The speed issue with a client is very obvious, i havent found a single person who can put his thumb on utorrent and say confidently i always get my maximum bandwidth used on utorrent.

Another argument about upload v/s download is almost stone aged. The more you upload the faster you will download doesnt happen anymore. Take example of my primary client Bitspirit. It almost feels like a reverse engineering of bittorrent. I can set my upload speed to just 5KBps and still download at 200KBps which is my maximum (i am on 2MB cable), Bitspirit gives me maximum on popular torents within 30 seconds, i swear sometimes it starts at 40 or 50KBps yet utorrent never does get to maximum. Bittorrent is run by community, by users with agenda Upload as much as you can and it doesnt necessarily means you wont get good down speed if you dont seed, it is again client independent setting

If someone_uploads = 5KBps

then give_him_download = 15KBps

else give_him_download = Unlimited

well 10 ppl using the above criteria results in you getting 150KBps (EX: you the only one connected to the peer) comon sense?? YES! I mean really we need to update our knowledgebase to, it very much depends on client as well.

Back to thread topic.

I have spoken to many people at other forums abouth this, the recommended setting for Maximum number of connected peers per torrent is 72 and that is independent of you having 1MB or 10MB, you should always set this setting to 72.

As of download speed dropping, i have already mentioned utorrent has its defficiencies when it comes to speed. If you want to make full use of your bandwidth (for example if you are on 2MB and want to achieve maximum) i recommend you increase number of active downloads to 5 to 7. For example if your client is set to 2 active downloads and it only goes as high as 200KBps, your remaining 200 is not used. If you set active downloads to 5 or 6 or 7, it will atleast make use of your remaining bandwidth. This practice is working well for me. I can only achieve 60 to 100KBps on my 2MB connection so when my computer is idle, if i am playing game or sleeping or out i always set the active downloads to 5 and it uses all the bandwidth my connection has to offer. Try using a program like Bandwidth Monitor Pro, A must have for all bittorrent users to monitor your speed and see if it makes any difference.

A word of advice. I know most of us are trying to clamp down on resource hog programs and trying utorrent, even making it primary client. The best thiing to do is use the client thats suited to your computer and bandwidth. Azureus is a big big resource hog then try alternatives like BitComet or Bitspirit, they are really good clients with low resources used. Hell i have even heard people praising the client which no one at all uses so really its upto your computer + connection, let them decide which client best suits your environment.

Regards.

[schwab]

"havent found a single person who can put his thumb on utorrent and say confidently i always get my maximum bandwidth used on utorrent."

i did easily, on single torrents before i upgraded to utorrent 1.2

now i seem to only hit 200k/s with 10 downloading torrents instead of the 350k/s i used to get on 1 torrent.

i also get the same 350k/s on 1 torrent with azureus. i dont know what happened to utorrent but it just used to seem faster.

[lament]

utorrent is still a baby, a client born yesterday and at merely 110KB it has its obvious defficiencies but it will no doubt get better. It has in my opinion very very very few options to tweak with compared to other big time clients in my case it is Bitspirit. The speed issue with a client is very obvious

so a client has to be huge and bloated to be efficient? lol

more options and larger filesize != better client

i havent found a single person who can put his thumb on utorrent and say confidently i always get my maximum bandwidth used on utorrent.

you said yourself already - it depends on the connection: both YOUR connection, and the connection of your peers/seeders. not every torrent is going to max your connection.

and as for speed.. I do alright:

I have spoken to many people at other forums abouth this, the recommended setting for Maximum number of connected peers per torrent is 72 and that is independent of you having 1MB or 10MB, you should always set this setting to 72.

lol is there a BitTorrent Society that is setting reference numbers now? come on now. not everyone's connection is the same, so how can this magical number work for everyone?

As of download speed dropping, i have already mentioned utorrent has its defficiencies when it comes to speed.

you're right - it must be µTorrent. it couldn't possibly be the peers/seeders they're connecting to, nor their client settings/caps on bandwidth.

A word of advice. I know most of us are trying to clamp down on resource hog programs and trying utorrent, even making it primary client. The best thiing to do is use the client thats suited to your computer and bandwidth. Azureus is a big big resource hog then try alternatives like BitComet or Bitspirit, they are really good clients with low resources used. Hell i have even heard people praising the client which no one at all uses so really its upto your computer + connection, let them decide which client best suits your environment.

Regards.

have you ever seen Clerks? You sound like the Chewly's gum representative with all this "Bitspirit this" and "Bitspirit that".

[silverfire]

"havent found a single person who can put his thumb on utorrent and say confidently i always get my maximum bandwidth used on utorrent."

Oh, but I actually do. My µTorrent here sucks bandwidth dry from what I can tell. When I'm sucking 1-2MB/s out of a torrent and uploading at around 250KB/s while I'm away from the computer and I go next door to chat with people, I see that all their internet connections are choked to death. Since I know for a fact that each residence hall shares a connection, I'm pretty sure that I consistently max out.

[TheColonel]

Sure you can set the max active torrents/ downloads to a high number to increase speed, but this will make more slots to be in use (connections to each peer) a lot slower due to the largr ammount of slots for the same upload bandwidth.

This will result in people downloading at crappy speed from you.

Now that we are talking about comparisons, there is a simple comparison you can make. If you set up a small tracker on your LAN (with azureus for example) you can test the limits of the connections by simply putting the seed on one PC and the peer on the other and compare at the end how much time it took and the average and top speeds.

Here is a comparison made by one of the Azureus developers that you can see: Client Speed Tests

You can see that bitcomet doesn't play well when seeding to other programs and that utorrent is the slowest of the bunch.

You can make your own tests and probably achieve similar results. Just try it.

[Kupotek]

Just transported all my torrents to Utorrent to give it another try, and so far so good.

Personal experience thus far in utorrent's favour:

1. Creates torrents faster then Azureus

2. Takes 1/10 the ram of Azureus

3. Takes 1/10 the handles and GDI of Azureus

[chaosblade]

Sure you can set the max active torrents/ downloads to a high number to increase speed, but this will make more slots to be in use (connections to each peer) a lot slower due to the largr ammount of slots for the same upload bandwidth.

This will result in people downloading at crappy speed from you.

Now that we are talking about comparisons, there is a simple comparison you can make. If you set up a small tracker on your LAN (with azureus for example) you can test the limits of the connections by simply putting the seed on one PC and the peer on the other and compare at the end how much time it took and the average and top speeds.

Here is a comparison made by one of the Azureus developers that you can see: Client Speed Tests

You can see that bitcomet doesn't play well when seeding to other programs and that utorrent is the slowest of the bunch.

You can make your own tests and probably achieve similar results. Just try it.

Thats a very subjective result. We already established the fact that uTorrent needs to be configured (settings) to reach optimal results. Maybe azureus' default settings are better, maybe its array of self-configuration helper plugins help, who knows. I dont see that test as proving anything, myself (aside from the fact bitcomet seeds badly, thats been known for awhile).