Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Firon

µTorrent 1.3.2-beta build 401

Recommended Posts

3: When connecting to a swarm which maxes out bandwidth' date=' I notice that µTorrent doesn't drop sources. If I'm downloading at a full 250 or 500 KB/s (maxed out), then I think really slow sources should be dropppd (< 1KB/s).[/quote']

I can understand about wanting to kick people off if you are maxing out your connections but not your bandwidth, but why do you care what they are giving you if your bandwidth itself is maxed out?

uTorrent is supposed to drop totally inactive guys if it needs the connection. But I'm relatively new and I already think Ludde doesn't want to implement something that would kick away guys that are merely slow - same reason why we are never likely to have a conveniently placed "Kick and Ban" switch.

Kicking and banning is not the way to look at it. Byt the simple fact is, the less connections I need, the more efficient. And I don't need those <1KB/s connections, but some slower users (dial-up or budget broadband) may be happy with it. In the above case, faster peers/seeds will need to create extra uploadslots, because even though they could send me 30 / 50 KB/s, they can't since I'm maxed out and hence send me only 10 - 20 KB/s.

So, I'm no talking about kicking and banning people, I'm talking about using the least amount of connections to fill my download. Less connections is more efficient and I think it may also reduce the wasted bandwidth a bit. Because Bittorrent more or less looks like a pyramid (at least in the first stages of a swarms lifetime), any gains in efficiency with perpetuate.

what if the seeder is a 8kB/s uploader and the people downloading that same thing are only 1kB/s peers? is better to have only 8kB/s ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, sometime between beta 390 and 393 my Folder Options got messed around a bit. "Put new downloads in:" was selected but blank (where previously I had it set to a particular directory), and "Store .torrent files in:" had been turned on without me knowing it. Been trying to figure out where the copies of torrent files with .1 in their names had been coming from, and why right-click -> Remove and... -> Delete .torrent wasn't properly deleting the torrent files all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... it appears that we cannot use private RSS feeds, at this time. Is this correct?

Most of the sites I choose to frequent are private. Is this being worked on or some workaround available now?

[...]

As an example dimeadozen sasy the following: Please note, that the feed is available for members only. You'll need a RSS reader which supports HTTP basic authentication.

Is this being worked upon? - I searched this whole thread but couldn't find an answer.

I'm also using private trackers which have RSS-feeds, so I would like it a lot if I could use them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not make uTorrent to fat. Try to stay under 128 kb please.

Version 1.4 will get 1 MB?, 1.5 - 2MB, 1.6 - 9 MB ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the latest beta, and the first version of utorrent available for download, it hasn't even doubled in size. This is despite how small it was then back then, and despite ALL the features that have been added since then. Ludde is developing this project superbly, and even if the client finally does break the 200kb barrier, i bet every last bit of code will be worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the nice thing is that adding code does not necessarily increase memory use (or at least by any noticeable amount).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus Ludde has released new versions of his program (with extra features and bug fixes in) and the program size has got SMALLER. Ludde is clearly capable of taking care of his baby, there is no need to tell him to try and keep it smaller than '128kb'.

Bittorrent as we know it will probably be a thing of the past before this client ever reaches the size of a floppy disk. And even if it does reach that size i'm not gonna be bothered as long as its memory and CPU usage is still top notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed, being small is not the only good on utorrent, is just that is the only one that has accomplish being so great for so litle :P

thx for all your hard work ludde, we really appreciate it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a user size is not important for me at the first side

it can be 10 mb there is no problem,i can still use it

usability and functionality is the most important thing

but the size is really incredible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the nice thing is that adding code does not necessarily increase memory use (or at least by any noticeable amount).

memory usage would be even slightly smaller without using pecompact. there is always some overhead when using exe packers.

i don't care if utorrent is 120kb or 300kb, as long as it's not a resource moster like azureus.

btw, there are exe packers compressing better than pecompact, especially for small files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i was thinking of nspack or winupack, but nspack is commercial stuff, so you can try winupack

this gave me always better results on small files. not as future rich as pecompact, to be honest.

i personally would appreciate an uncompressed version, as this uses less memory. people still can compress the exe using whatever exe packer they prefer... upx, pecompact etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncompressed exes are a license to people with a disassembler to crank out hacked versions to get around annoying things like semi-enforced fairness and truthful up/down reporting. Unless there's a pecompact unpacker I'm not aware of. (Then again many things can be done with memory patching, but not nearly as easily, elegantly, or permanently.) I bet that's one reason ludde chose pecompact over upx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, but a person who has the skills to hack utorrent that way, most likely also is able to unpack pecompact.

everything can be unpacked, no doubt about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried to run 390' date=' no go, as it runs and is started, I can see it in Task Mgr, but never 'starts'. Any suggestions?

I have reverted back to 389, in th mean time. Thanks again for a great product. And boy is it great to have my broadband back after 3 weeks of dial-up..lol[/quote']

Try Build 391? :|

Sorry for replying so late, but I decided to do a reformat over my weekend (Fri/Sat), but 391 did the same thing. When I ran utorrent under the fresh install (391) I had no problems. So all is well again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a user size is not important for me at the first side

it can be 10 mb there is no problem,i can still use it

usability and functionality is the most important thing

but the size is really incredible

uTorrent is not only so nice becouse it doesnt need much PC Power (Ram, CPU) - where i have to say ! respect ! . Its so good becouse its thin (current non beta : 115 kb) too.

if its would growing to 5-10 MB its mostly like all other BitTorrent clients out there (only the less power using would be nice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, had a few minutes to test basic authentication, but I can't seem to get it to download anything? I verified my settings and such and have everything right? What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firon, on the mainpage, it still says version 1.3.2 391 beta, perhaps time to correct the link, the info and the changelog.

lynx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.