add Cache Controller ,the tiny program would be perfect :)

[morphia_cn]

I love small,green softwares like this! I think it should be have a cache controller as a BitTorrents client,

and the cache controller could be put into somewhere like "Advanced User Settings".

in Bitcomet,with the cache controller,u can see the information below in "Statistics":

Disk Read Statistics: Request: 0 (freq: 0.0/s), Actual Disk Read: 0 (freq: 0.0/s), Hit Ratio: 0.0%

Disk Write Statistics: Request: 0 (freq: 0.0/s, Actual Disk Write: 0 (freq: 0.0/s), Hit Ratio: 0.0%

My "Hit ratio" is always more than 90% ,i set 100-200 mb Cache for protecting my harddisk.

it is really reduce actual disk read/write times if u set the correctly cache size.

I know more cache size ,more Memory use,and it seems like counter the feature "less than 6mb memory use" of uTorrent.but in my opinion less disk read/write times is more important than less memory use.

my mother tongue is not English so that I am sorry for my nonstandard English..

[Firon]

Most of the memory use reduction comes from efficiency in the program's code, it has a fairly reasonable cache size by default (automatic management).

You can set the cache yourself to a much higher value (diskio.write_queue_size), though in practice going over 32MB doesn't actually help as much as you'd think

[Ishidropi]

I think what morphia_cn meant to say is not just the write_disk.

But also the read_disk (if there would be any).

uTorrent needs a read-buffer imho. It would do good on my hdd.

I'm using emule when sharing from my external hd

and it accesses the hd not very often.

But when leeching or just seeding with uTorrent. I hear the hd working its butt off.

Thats about the only thing that would let me refrain from using uTorrent, out of

fear of fucking up this hd

[Firon]

for one, doesn't emule read files sequentially?

data for torrents basically get read in random order...

[Ishidropi]

Ok, i should have added that i used other torrent-clients.

Azureus and Bitcomet are the only multitorrent of those.

And they were also very silent when using seeding or leeching

multiple torrents.

They precache data in several ways, caching next piece to be seeded

is one of them.

And cach pieces that are more frequently asked i think.

Basically uTorrent isnt very good on the hd. (but not for long i hopes )

[Animorc]

Wouldn't it be difficult to cache something that is randomly chosen? You would practically need to cache the whole torrent to really save the HDD.

[Ishidropi]

Wouldn't it be difficult to cache something that is randomly chosen? You would practically need to cache the whole torrent to really save the HDD.

Have you tried other bittorrent-clients and compared their usage of the HDD?

If you havent then you probably don't know what I'm talking about.

[Animorc]

I didn't say other clients aren't more friendly to the HDDs, I just can't see how any client is able to predict what pieces that should be cached without caching a big part of the file.

[muu]

Well whatever it is, it must be working becoz using Bitcomet for seeding I can also see less disk read access. Therefore I also support request for utorrent to implement disk read caching.

[skynetman]

Azures switched from completely random block request to sequential block request to other clients to enable better caching AFAIK.

It starts from a random point and then continues asking following blocks for some MB.

This way other clients can cache the upload better.

I use Azureus with 64MB of cache and it caches 90% of download disk accessess and 10-50% of upload accesses. 90% means TEN TIME less moving my HD heads !

The good thing about AZ implementation is that it works with the anti corruption client banning. AZ remembers who gave us every block and in case of corruption on multiple blocks it tracks the bastard spreading bad data and bans it.

[Moody]

This is strange, I have no torrents dowloading, just 3 torrents seeding, two unlimited and one limited to 4kbs. Overall seeding 45Kbs.

I have just looked at my hard drives led's for as long as I could without falling asleep and I have only seen one three second bust of activety, not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. 512megs of ram on this PC. The only advanced option I have changed is diskio_write_queue_size *2000. What is the star (*) for?

[Animorc]

The "star", or asterisk, tells you that the value in the field is not the default one.

[Moody]

Ah, thanks Animorc, simple as that, should have known, I was looking for a much deeper explanation.

[Zoolook]

I have just begun using utorrent due to the ban of Bitcomet and I have to say I find it to be a very good program with a lot of nice touches that bitcomet lacks but there is one big caveat and that's the lack of a read cache, it's going to kill my drives rapidly, while Bitcomet with a cache of 100 to 300 MB, I've got plenty of memory to spare, I get 90 to 95 % cache hits and very silent drives. But with utorrent, the drives are very noisy, (all drives aren't constantly defragmented). With a disk cache like Bitcomets I would stay with utorrent, but without it I have to say I'll switch back to Bitcomet in a heartbeat when it's patched.

Is it not possible that it's because of the cache that Bitcomet is better at maximizing the upload speed than utorrent?

Thanks for a good program though.

/Z

[Firon]

nope, µTorrent maximizes the upload speed just fine. And for the few cases where it didn't, ludde's already tweaked it. He tried adding a read cache to test high speed seeding with (with read-aheads and so on), but believe it or not, it made almost no difference...

Now, the difference is that BitComet bypasses the Windows system cache altogether (yes it's possible) so it can do it's own full read/write cache. At the moment it's not really possible to do that with µTorrent, but maybe in the future.

[chaosblade]

I believe ludde is thinking (or already did, somehow) about adding reach caching. Thats by watching some IRC logs, so dont take me 100% accurately.

[Nefarious]

well, it's been posted that he tried it once but made not difference at all so

[Firon]

chaosblade: he added it and didn't really notice any difference.

[danei]

If I set reading cache 1GB and keep uploading a 700mb file, how can it make no difference?I can't understand......

[Lord Alderaan]

This feature has already been added to µtorrent and you're not even requesting a change but you're reentering a discussion that was ended more then a year ago...

[danei]

I,m sorry if I miss something.

I mean, a reading cache that can be set size just as writing cache, here in ut 1.61 stable, the auto reading cache just use about 32 mB and leave my hard drive read 10~20 times a second. at the same time takes about 60mB and writes my hard driver about 0~5 times a second.

My speed is about 3mBs downloading and 1.5 mBs uploading in a test lan.

at least 1GB of my ram was wasted and my hard driver was doing a hard work for it also takes the pressure of apache and mysql and a ftp service.

I use bitorrent method to take the place of ftp service, but I,m afraid that it take much more presure to my hard driver than a ftp service with 520mB cache.

edit:

Sorry for my poor English if it looks not so friendly.

I hava tried bitcomet bitlord bitspirit.......and I find ut is the only one that worth trying and worth my time to ask for improve.

Regards

danei

[Ultima]

Then you probably didn't set your cache settings up properly. Digging an old feature request thread up is NOT the way to get support around here. Start a new thread of your own, and provide us with a screenshot of your disk cache settings.