eger Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 I started taking advantage of the Add peer option to add peers that are on my LAN to have faster transfers to local clients. It does work fast when they connect. But all too often all the upload slots are already taken and the added peer is choked for a long while.Maybe there could be an advanced option for adding priority to manually added peers or forcing manually added peers to not be choked?Thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Good idea, IMO. In fact, great idea. I've experienced waiting for a slot to open up for a 100mbit LAN per and it sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 µTorrent should just automatically hand the next optimistic unchoke over to manually added peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eger Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 That should also work. Though again the main reason is the waiting time it takes to get the connection. Sometime we will wait for optimistic unchoke either and in the time it takes to wait, the file could be done already if it was connected at the time of the peer add. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 µTorrent doesn't necessarily even connect to manually added peers, it just adds them to the internal peerlist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eger Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Oh I see! Well in that case. Maybe we could have them forced connection and not choked if they would be. I'm not sure how feasable this is or how much user influence this has on the overall torrent. I do like completing multiple seeds on LAN very quickly. But again I do NOT like user influenced peer behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redleer Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Firon yup noticed that when did some things with Ludde or it could been some other problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorizonX Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I don't see the harm in having the option to force the giving of upload slots to 1 or 2 manually added peers... it seems to have a far greater potential for good than bad, since people are probably adding them for the sake of the swarm; e.g., adding someone on a LAN with your or with the same ISP for improved speeds. Plus, you can't force a manually added peer to give slots back to you, so no worries there. I wonder what ludde thinks of this? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I think HorizonX has it there. The only problems arise when people are tricking other users into giving them more bandwidth, or blocking users. This should be fine as far as I can see. I think even opening another slot would be best.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 So you could firewall out the tracker, and manually force-feed seed ips to the torrent. And then you'll be connected to people who can only upload to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorizonX Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well the option to add peers is already there, so couldn't you try doing that firewall trick with the current client? Besides, what do you mean 'only upload to you'? They're in the swarm, and as I stated earlier, you can't force an added peer to send data back to you. I'm not really seeing a great potential for abuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Actually, I meant they could upload but could not download from you...as they would have no need.But it is true, from their view, you'd be one of many peers connected to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewldude606 Posted January 5, 2006 Report Share Posted January 5, 2006 So you automatically start uploading/downloading to a manually added host if it is on your local network.Local network IPs are10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eger Posted January 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 So you automatically start uploading/downloading to a manually added host if it is on your local network.Local network IPs are10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255I wouldn't expect it to be implemented this way if it would be. A local LAN segment IP can be any IP. Even public addresses on the net that are on my same switch or 1 or 2 routers away might be considered local or 'high-speed' connections which you might want to immediately peer with if you have manually added them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Im not sure how 'fair play' that would be. Lets say i keep adding my friends to a torrent manually, and they will always get priority, repeat, etc'. Thats kinda allowing bad behavior to be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eger Posted January 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 The idea is your not ONLY peering with your firends. A manually added peer shoudn't count as a slot against your set limits. This way if you don't have the bandwidth and your adding peers manually no one will benefit anyways. But in the case you do have the bandwidth and want it used you can add an extra slot or 2 that is not going to hurt current peers performance.I do see the cause for concern on the influence this has on the swarm. Just for that reason alone it might never be added as a feature I realized... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Im not sure how 'fair play' that would be. Lets say i keep adding my friends to a torrent manually, and they will always get priority, repeat, etc'. Thats kinda allowing bad behavior to be used.If you keep disconnecting and reconnecting them manually, sure that would happen -- but that's going to be painful.Optimistic Unchoke normally only lasts for 30 seconds and it's only if that client uploads back to you that your connection is likely to continue uploading to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HorizonX Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Yeah...people that want to cheat that bad probably aren't really into using uTorrent anyway... :-P I mean, saying it'll cause some massive conspiracy of people making sub-communities within torrents if we allow a manually added peer to actually connect to us in a reasonable amount of time instead of possibly never seems kind of silly, doesn't it? ^^; My vote is still to implement this in whatever form is appropriate. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabrizio.Marana Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 And now we're 5 years later and there still is no such thing... I was googling for this and dropped on this post...So much for wanting to reward some peer that is nicely uploading to me and i want to reward them by uploading to them too but my client automatically chokes them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.