Ghost21 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I'm downloading an 8.5GB torrent and getting lots of hash fails, sometimes up to 10 fails on a particular piece. Checked my disk for errors/bad sectors, still getting the failed hashes.So I tried firing up Azureus and after a few failed hashes it blocked around 10 IPs. There were no more failed hashes after that.My question is, does µTorrent blocks an IP after repeated hash fails or not? Coz it works fine with Azureus. Or maybe it's the way it handles files? Btw, both cache are set to 4MB. It happens only on this particular torrent. Other torrents are fine.PS: Another thing, when a piece failed a hash check, is it downloaded again? Like a 4MB piece failing a hash check, is the whole piece redownloaded? Or only parts of the 4MB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Torrent is probably being seeded with corrupt data. µTorrent should block IPs after 5 hash fails from each IP, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Yeah, weird. :| As Ultima said, µTorrent should block those peers that send 5 or more hash fails...I guess it's not working correctly.... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moody Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Just looked in my logger and saw ealier today the same piece failed hash check 6 times in under an hour the general tab shows wasted 126.8 megs, 19 hash fails in total for this torrent.Bittornado seemed to have a 2 levels system, where first they get banned and eventually kicked. I think it would be a good idea to have the logger keep a record of banned Peers, we would then have more confidence that uTorrent was dealing with the problem. Would this be worth asking for in feature requests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 If you feel it's necessary, yes. Nobody is going to stop you from posting a feature request. If/how and when it's going to be implemented though, that's another matter enitrely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Well, the fact that the piece's hash failed 6 times doesn't mean much unless it's from the same peer (it might not have been). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Yeah, but Azureus works fine after it blocked the 10 IP addresses. I decided to add the IPs to PeerGuardian and tried using µTorrent again. So far no more hash fails. I guess it's not working properly in µTorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Maybe it's only kicking them and not kickbanning them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Uh, maybe? But when the IPs are blocked by PeerGuardian I get no more hash fails from that torrent. Can you confirm whether it kicks or kickbans (blocks) those IPs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 How many hash errors have there been in total (on the General tab, next to Wasted)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Can't remember, but it's around 30+ for 3 torrents. But the one I mentioned has most of it, usually the same piece multiple times. All this within 6 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 For this one torrent, I'll just estimate and say that you had... 15 hash errors on it. If that's the case, and it was spread among 10 IPs, then they most likely won't be banned, until they each give you 5 hash fails. Maybe Azureus is stricter about hash fails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 http://www.utorrent.com/download/beta/utorrent-1.3.2-beta-build-395.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Ludde has said on IRC though that he hasn't done a lot of testing with hashfails, so it's possible utorrent is currently not working optimally in this respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I'm testing b395 now. Hope it's ok already. 'Cause wasting 100+MB of downloads due to hash fails every few hours ain't fun. Especially with 4MB pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Yeah we understand. Hope this gets fixed A.S.A.P. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 It already has been, it bans the peers for one hour and will not connect/accept connections for that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 But apparently it's not, at least according to Ghost21, Moody and others... :/ I can't test it since I haven't had hash fails in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Ic3d0g: yes it is.http://www.utorrent.com/download/beta/utorrent-1.3.2-beta-build-395.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moody Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 It already has been, it bans the peers for one hour and will not connect/accept connections for that long.The changelog for 395 reads "Change: Don't reconnect to banned peers after 1 hour." I read this to mean that, banned peers are not reconnected after an hour (perhaps, as previously), is this wrong? It seems quite specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Yes, before it only kicked them apparently. And I was telling Ic3d0g that it's already been fixed, as of beta 395 which was released yesterday. ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Well, if you're running the torrents for hours, there's a chance that you will connect to that peer again. I would prefer to ban them until torrent finishes. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00ted Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 what Ips are these sending corrupt data/hashes? bluetack now has a templist.txt for tracking bad hash/data senders.And well, if the IPs don't look residential, they could have some ulterior motifs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost21 Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 81.224.30.205209.240.118.130141.153.247.15524.110.65.243217.164.78.19483.73.101.1481.224.30.133193.229.40.1670.137.154.210200.140.22.242I checked, and they are not on bluetack's templist. I'm just blocking them until my d/l is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I have a particularly long blocklist created by a friend who maintains BearShare's hostile list. I looked through it to see if any of these entries matched any of the blocklist's entries.None found...butEven though I found no exact matches, I found a few that were close to very close.For instance, you had trouble with this ip: 209.240.118.130And in the blocklist, I found these blocked:209.240.118.106209.240.118.230209.240.118.240Notice only the last number differs? There's a chance these ips are really the same computer that just gets a different ip from time to time.Another example for this ip: 217.164.78.194Is these blocked ips:217.164.78.57217.164.78.111217.164.78.211217.164.78.218 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.