Problem with download speed [utorrent 1.8]

[Firon]

A mere 800gb? Try 10 TB. 800gb is nothing.

And all I'm proving by removing the limiter is that it's too easy to fuck the BT system and leech away without support of other clients.

[donniedurton]

So your deluded as well as arrogant topped of with a superiority complex, good on you, hope that all works out for you.

[thelittlefire]

You should feel pride, you trolled an admin.

[Switeck]

donniedurton,

4th link in my signature is a short posting made by people FAR better versed in BitTorrent logic than I am.

Your settings are probably dooming someone to being unable to finish the same torrents you were downloading. By lowering upload speed to just 1 while downloading, you are sabotaging the rarity piece equations that ALL BitTorrent clients use to decide what to download next. You're offering pieces that you can't deliver in a timely manner precisely because of the very low upload speed.

Worse, if you allow multiple upload slots per torrent...it means you don't even CARE about others' experience, because if/when you DO upload to them, your 1 KiloBYTE/second gets split multiple ways.

By the time the torrent is completely downloaded, sure you raise your upload speed...BUT THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE.

By emphasizing your demonoid ratio, you show you care more about ratios (something done partially for your own benefit) instead of helping others.

You may think that ratios show you're helping alot, but that alone is just willful ignorance...and with how you're responding here, willful arrogance as well.

[LOke]

Yeh! A lot of talk bout damaged swarms n such...Who can say to me torrent sharing is degreeing or lacking in interest in theese days..???

And what way of filesharing is growing most of all.. ye torrent sharing of course

So why all this policecap talking shidD

Cannot the filesharingbiz take care of it self,like yesterday, and 15 years before that???

but i´m still intrested in the possible answers in why programmers are making choices for users??

Please now answer megafonn now once and for all, on his qustions and not bout other bullshidd!!!

Sorrry for bad spelling i´m n oldie from ice cold north

[Switeck]

BitTorrent has always required you to share.

But apparently it was too much to ask...sadly.

And yes, I have tried and failed to download many dead torrents.

Almost every one of them was a case that someone didn't care enough to share back what they got. (or they couldn't.)

Hit-and-Run = when someone stops a download immediately after it finishes without uploading as much as they downloaded.

[cnicog]

Good thing you're removing this from utorrent in 1.8.1.. I was already getting ready to either downgrade to 1.7.7 or to get another torrent downloader.

It's not up to you to decide how much people upload. Like someone said earlier, a leecher will always be a leecher and will always find a way to circumvent any protection tools you guys try to implement.

Now, don't trash your incredible software by implementing things users don't like/want, you'll end up losing your user base.

It's funny how you didn't mention anything about it in your changelog, and it's even more funny to see your forums being flooded with "my download speeds sucks" threads.

I was starting to like utorrent 1.8 (loved the new icon btw) but things like this just piss people off.

[thelittlefire]

It has nothing to do with download speeds, only the leecher nature of you leechers.

[ngocthang]

DL and UP very bad after I update ver 1.8

Back to ver 1.7. speed in DL and UP don't come with me zzzz

before update, DL ~ 100kB/s UL~ 50 KB/s

After update, DL ~ 3KB/s, upload ~ 10KB/s

WTF???

[Switeck]

ngocthang,

Your problem is far more severe and probably not related to the problem people are complaining about here.

Please start a new topic in troubleshooting or speed problems (one or the other)...

Then try the 1st and 2nd link in my signature.

1st one is for troubleshooting, and tells you what information you'll need to give us if the problem isn't solved quickly.

2nd link gives suggested settings for uTorrent based on your max sustainable UPLOAD speed.

NOTE: Max sustainable UPLOAD speed is nowhere near max download speed for almost every internet connection in existence.

[mnengoaf]

quite a storm here.

I came to this forum because I heard in other forums, including non-English ones, that there were new limitations and important changes in 1.8 not shared with the public. I found this topic. So I wanted to share my opinion after reading all messages on this topic.

First of all: I shall agree with LOke on megafonn issue. you should have answered him/her instead of banning him/her. those claims are already popped up on the internet and will spreading at light-speed. Whatever past you guys have with him/her is not my business but he had some serious points.

Second: Everyone has different bandwidth rates and even allocates various ratios to simultaneous torrents. Putting download-upload limitations would only make torrent clients another version of e-Mule nothing else. You are in no position, unless you know all users' bandwidth and client settings, to determine which rate would fit best and satisfy all users.

Third: Putting limitations cannot stop hit-and-run activities. Not even hurt them seriously because those guys probably would develop workarounds faster than you. This is a self-consciousness issue regarding "sharing". that sustained the torrent protocol over the years despite easier hit-and-run options comparing to e-Mule.

Fourth: If you cannot get some torrents at the speed you wanted, it is because you are getting a torrent which s not so popular. It will happen for all protocols. It is a matter of popularity not forced seed. Accept it you cannot all you want. Nothing can stay on seed forever.

Fifth: I have seen no straight explanation so far where did you reach 4KB/s upload and 12 times download restrictions. Was that banned guy right on his comments despite the weird similarities he/she used? Will every client developer apply his/her own personal preferences? Since every client approaches to this issue differently than there s no solid ground for this limitation.

Sixth: do not assume the position of shaping torrent swarms on your personal preferences. as mentioned previously you are not supposed to play policeman role but continue to develop lightweight, feature rich torrent client. Unless you consider yourself as Zeus of torrent world do not self-assume the role of shaping swarms. If you put unwanted restrictions on your client then someone else will develop the client torrent community wants. Swarm is hit by lack of seeders more than anything else. So what difference does it make you tie downloads to uploads. uploads will be far less than downloads until completion of the torrent. What ifthe completed file is not seeded?

Seventh: Users may prefer to get the file as fast as possible by minimizing upload and then seed it at higher upload rates. This is a preference of many people forrecent movies. They don't want to wait while there is an opportunity to get it faster. It is their choice and no one can judge them as long as they stay as a seeder after completing the file so they share what they get.

Eighth: Not mentioning these changes in the changelog has been a serious damage to your credibility. Developers usually list major changes such as these limitations while introducing the new version to make users easily realize what is new. Also a full changelog with all minor changes is provided separately for those who would like to get every single change. Size of the changelog should not be an issue. It is just a text! Don't you have few hundred kilobytes on your website to put it i a download section?

Ninth: You are indifferent to skipping some changes in the changelog although users even expect a more understandable and brief list of changes on the download page. How many people spend serious time to figure out their speed is downgraded because of these changes? You sure owe us, the users, an apology.

Tenth: Remeber you are not the only torrent client. utorrent was popular because you have provided so far to the community what t wants. If you put your personal preferences in front of our demands for a freeware software then we will find another client. This is how it works.

wow it is tenth now. it looks like the ten commandment :-)

I hope you will repent from the mistakes above. I like utorrent and I expect you do whatver you have to prevent community changing their favorite client it in the future.

[thelittlefire]

uTorrent 1.8 was in the public testing phase for 9 months. If you wanted to hear about changes... you could have tested. And this came up several times in the in-development thread as well. Sure you won't read it because the thread topped 5000 posts before 1.8 was released.

[mnengoaf]

all users but developers have mere interest in development stage changes which could be reversed in next test release. they are interested in the major changes in final version. expecting everyone to follow every single letter change developers made during development phase is even beyond what is called unrealistic.

I should say I am disappointed the way developers released 1.8. I recommend them to review download or "what's new" pages of other software.

PS: do not try to personalize the issue. I am not going to fall that trap. I am not writing to argue with any fictional character. I made my points and they stand!

[Switeck]

megafonn was never banned.

I censored his one post for personal attacks on me...AFTER I HAD WARNED HIM I WOULD DO SO.

I answered the questions here to the best of my ability, and added my opinion which is contrary it seems to most of the posters here. To that, I have received little more than ire.

I'm a uTorrent user too, and NOT paid OR required to do anything here.

Secondly, Thirdly, Fourthly, Sixthly: ALL running torrents SHOULD be capable of giving at least 1 KiloBYTE/second PER UPLOAD SLOT. Upload slots per torrent limit is the max number of peers to upload to per torrent at a time. If you're NOT uploading to a peer, it may snub you and not upload to you...and even later disconnect you if you never upload to it. uTorrent will AUTOMATICALLY reduce used upload slots, to 1 per torrent if your upload speed is too low. It can't be disabled. So if you tell uTorrent to use 4 upload slots (the default number unless you ran Speed Guide), you BETTER tell uTorrent to upload at least 4 KiloBYTES/second PER TORRENT or 4 upload slots will not be used.

You probably didn't see that in the change logs or listed ANYWHERE as a feature of uTorrent.

This behavior was added...about January 2006. It is NOT meant to be an anti-leech feature at all, instead it was added so even if you only allowed 20 connections per torrent that you could get GOOD DOWNLOAD SPEEDS...and wouldn't piss off ISPs because everyone "needed" 100 connections to get good speeds.

Fifth: The developer's choice of the 4 KiloBYTES/second upload cutoff may have to do with limitations of BitTorrent that even I don't understand. For instance, the BitTorrent protocol specification papers which need to be followed to make a proper BitTorrent-compatible program (instead of just a borderline leech or hostile client such as BitComet) specifies 4 upload slots per torrent...giving multiple reasons for this "arbitrary" number that have to due with limitations of TCP networking, latency, and the internet itself. How often peer and seed ips are retried, regardless of max half open connection limit is likewise "arbitrary"...to prevent accidental Distributed Denial-of-Service attacks and reduce bandwidth used. How quickly uTorrent adapts to its upload slot setting change is indeed "arbitrary" as well...based on criteria that's not directly obvious to the user. Even when uTorrent quits trying to make new connections and how fast it drops old connections is "arbitrary".

Almost none of these rates, limits, or methods used in uTorrent are listed anywhere...and you can't change them.

You'll get VERY bad results with many settings combinations in uTorrent precisely because of these "arbitrary" decisions.

Don't think for a second that I agree with all these decisions, however the end result is good enough.

Even if it wasn't, almost none of this can be changed in any other program...and most of them use even worse "arbitrary" rates.

[mnengoaf]

I have read all but the censored message. sorry to say but you explained nothing so far. why the limit is 4 or relationship is 11-12 times more upload, why you don't inform people about changes like other software developers do and other questions asked by users still remain unanswered. you always refer to your infamous 4th link and try to make some conclusions but unfortunately they do not justify anything.

instead of getting all criticism to personalized level try to fix the problem. I just checked other topics and realized people are having trouble with this undeclared upload-download tie. Sad thing is that you also direct them to play with router, firewall settings first but problems seem to related to this change mostly. Look for other forums, you will see much more problems of same kind.

taking criticism to personal level and ignoring the demands of the community makes it much worse for a freeware torrent client.

[megafonn]

I am not banned, at least till now.

but apparently this switeck guy deleted one of the most important criticism I wrote by claiming it was a personal insult to him. what criticism disturbed you that much? I don't curse people, so what was it that made you afraid if others read it? (I know the answer but if I write it it will be deleted again probably this time on grounds of having eyebrows over mu eyes!!!)

If you are not paid consider asking for a salary. you do a good job for cover-up operations. see, Firon does not under spotlight and answer my questions, instead you personally attack me. good job!!!

I had listed several points and asked questions. I dared them to prove I am wrong. as you see all questions remains unanswered.

you may try to cover the sun with mud. but truth will prevail.

[ady4um]

I can't believe no one mod or user said "take a look at Ultima's ut 1.8 manual".

[Switeck]

The so-called secret HAD been mentioned, debated, and CHANGED during the course of the uTorrent v1.8 beta. I personally argued against it until I understood it didn't affect OTHER torrents.

But distilling down a message thread that's 5073 posts and 203 PAGES long into a simple, short list of new features and changes isn't easy.

Ultima's uTorrent v1.8 manual is HERE:

http://download.utorrent.com/utorrent-help.zip

[ady4um]

@Switeck, not every user would be interested in the betas, as already someone said. That's fine and understandable. But I would expect from users with problems to try and troubleshoot first, instead of just saying something else is wrong. So, those users that first come here and are constantly asking the same things just show how lazy people could be. This is also true for most other issues, not just for this topic. If users take a look at the 1.8 manual first, they will understand that this new 12* relation is specific for each torrent, that is not affecting the other ones, that the global limits where there before, and even could try to understand why those limits are there.

So the protocol is there, and the devs try to follow it. That makes them evil or bad or cops? If a user don't like the PROTOCOL limits, well, you have the option not to use it. The protocol, I mean. A protocol is a series of rules, and ut is trying to follow those rules as a client of a specific protocol. That is not so bad, IMO.

It is true, the webpage could be announcing all sort of things. Even the forum could be better (I myself made some suggestions, without not a single response). So someone could say the publishing is not the best. This does not mean, IMO, that the devs are trying to keep things as a secret, specially since it is publicly available info in this forum (there are more than a few discussions about it), and for the users there is a manual with all the info about it.

Specificly about the 4 KB/s and the 12* relation, I think Switeck *did* answer, with the explanation about dial-up speeds and alike. The forum is not a math master. Maybe is not good "marketing", but the technical base about those numbers should not be an issue for everyone to discussed. If anyone wants to discussed about it, he should get "inside" the protocol first, not just complain about it without any real knowledge. I'm not saying people here don't have it. Maybe they do, maybe not. Just make based points, please don't just complain about some feature or characteristic. And, as I said, if you just don't like it, having or not any based reason, just don't use the protocol (not ut, not bit*, not vus* not azure*, not any bittorrent protocol client) You *have* the right to choose, based or not-based reason.

A final comment about based technical reasons: When Firon thougth there might be some kind of situations where some user-not-leecher would have some difficulties with those limits, he honestly said it may be changed. The protocol is there to try to even things, to get to share. It is true leecher will be leechers, limits or not limits. But there are many users that simply set their torrent client with not so smart settings (in terms of how the protocol works), but they don't know about it. So not-leech-users are getting the benefit of this limits actually, simply because they are being "forced" to check their settings, to try and know a little bit about their bittorrent's clients. Instead of just complain about their speeds, they are coming to the forum and getting help to improve their speeds even better than before. These limits actually benefits all not-leechers. Yeah, the real leachers will still be there. But we are not really careing about them. We are?

@Firon, so, maybe it is still a good idea to leave this limits. Think about it.

[kerouac]

The mods here have always been helpful and respectful to me. It's regrettable to see anger take precedence over reason, anger coming from both posters and admin. As my college bud pyschologist likes to say, "you should never use the word 'you.'"

As for 1.8, I'm with the group going back. No matter what settings I use, while loading two large torrents I can't get D/L speeds above 40 kiloBytes (not bits) while U/L speed is running 120 kB. These torrents have 100 seeders and peers each. I can only connect with a handful.

1.7.7 was 100kB on a bad day, 300kB average, 800 kB on a good day. My current tested D/L speed 1,200 kB, U/L speed 140 kB. Two torrents I would have downloaded in about two hours have been going for twelve hours and are only 70% complete. Speed's not worth paying for if one can't use it.

As for seeders vs. leechers, isn't it up to torrent sites to police their own? Many do. It makes sense they'd have the most to gain. Isn't building it into the client a moot point?

[DreadWingKnight]

As for 1.8, I'm with the group going back. No matter what settings I use, while loading two large torrents I can't get D/L speeds above 40 kiloBytes (not bits) while U/L speed is running 120 kB. These torrents have 100 seeders and peers each. I can only connect with a handful.

Then try running with lower upload limits or enable the net.calc_overhead advanced setting.

As for seeders vs. leechers, isn't it up to torrent sites to police their own? Many do. It makes sense they'd have the most to gain. Isn't building it into the client a moot point?

http://azureuswiki.com/index.php/User:The8472/Private_trackers

Policing users based on easily-spoofed statistics is not exactly the smartest thing to do.

[Firon]

I have no issues downloading at 11mbyte/s with 1.8 (as fast as my port can go).

kerouac, we can help you troubleshoot your speed problems. Just make another thread.

[vaynardx]

net.calc_overhead advanced setting<--what does this do?

[DreadWingKnight]

Caluclates protocol overhead in upload and download limits. You can set your limits closer to your line's actual speed then.

[vaynardx]

Should I activate this feature or should I keep it false?