Utorrent is noisy !

[kokoko3k]

Hi all,

I readed some posts about read caching, write caching, hd life and so on...

I don't mind if my hd will last 3 months less, but i switched from bitcomet to utorrent and i found it very noisy.

Tried azureus and bitspirit too, they (like bitcomet) became quiter when you increase the disk read cache size.

I don't know how, i don't know why, but it's true and not a placebo.

[Ultima]

It isn't noisy in my experience... Have you tried raising the diskio.write_queue_size?

[kokoko3k]

Yep, but i am mainly a seeder/uploader.

Utorrent uses windows (BAD) caching system, is there a way to optimize it then ?

[1c3d0g]

Set diskio_write_queue_size to 2x - 4x your maximum download speed.

[kokoko3k]

I spoke about READ cache.

Is there a way to optimize WINDOWS red-ahead cache system to keep utorrent quiet ?

My upload speed is 10mbps, and believe me, from 300KB/S on upload, it became VERY noisy.

[1c3d0g]

Ask M$ to fix their broken cache system, use SysInternals' CacheSet if you want to set your own values or buy a new, QUIET hard disk (with FBM). :/

[Inf]

There is a setting (in win2k its under System Properties/Advanced/Performance Options) that allows windows to use more memory for caching (optimize for background services). I have no idea how is it called and where exactly is it located on winxp, find it yourself and try if it makes a difference.

[Primus]

Yep, but i am mainly a seeder/uploader.

Utorrent uses windows (BAD) caching system, is there a way to optimize it then ?

There's a number of threads about this no-read-cache-equals-bad misinformation going around, a quick search would have brought them up. Here's part of Firon's post from another thread:

It is utterly useless to have a -read cache- on top of the Windows system cache, which does precisely what a read cache would do: cache reads, and perform read-aheads!

[1c3d0g]

There is a setting (in win2k its under System Properties/Advanced/Performance Options) that allows windows to use more memory for caching (optimize for background services). I have no idea how is it called and where exactly is it located on winxp, find it yourself and try if it makes a difference.

Right-click My Computer ▶ Advanced ▶ go to the first Settings button ▶ Advanced. From there you can modify Processor scheduling or Memory usage. Click OK, then OK again. It'll probably ask you to reboot your PC for the settings to take effect.

So anyway, we've given enough suggestions on how to fix it, and since this issue is entirely out of our hands, I'll just leave it at that.

[kokoko3k]

As i said in the first posts, i already readed a lot of posts about that "problem".

the issue remains, bitcomet, azureus, bitspirit are quiet, utorrent not.

Maybe is not the cache, maybe is my soundcard, maybe my hd doesn't like utorrent

what firon wrote is true into an ideal environment, but the utorrent faqs says that windows implements a bad system to manage the cache, so I have thought that a second level cache could be useful.

that's all.

i'm not speaking about performances, disk stress or something, it's just more "noisy"

[Firon]

Well, what you can do is set your cache to background services or something and use cacheset or something to make it much much larger. ;P

And it's not really so much that it handles it badly, it's that some people thought there were memory leaks (there weren't) and/or found their systems slowing down sometimes after extended torrenting periods. :/

[splintax]

Your sound card? :|

[kokoko3k]

@splintax: just joking about that

[splintax]

hehe, OK. The rest of your post sounded fairly serious, is all.

[acd]

There's a number of threads about this no-read-cache-equals-bad misinformation going around, a quick search would have brought them up. Here's part of Firon's post from another thread:

It is utterly useless to have a -read cache- on top of the Windows system cache, which does precisely what a read cache would do: cache reads, and perform read-aheads!

Actually, that quote from Firon _is_ the misinformation.*

A dedicated cache is certainly _not_ useless. A general purpose read cache like windows' can not compete with one programmed with bittorrent in mind. For instance, the usual read-ahead is great for sequential access, unfortunately a bittorrent client does not read files in a sequential way, it will read whatever pieces are requested by other peers. Also, windows cache knows nothing about bittorrent piece-size, what means it can read-ahead too much or too little, or flush part of a piece in use. Not to mention that the windows read cache is shared by all running programs, while a dedicated cache isn't.

How some people keep insisting that µTorrent doesn't need a proper cache is beyond me. If the reasoning above doesn't convince you, get hold of a fast connection and try uploading on it. As the original poster, you'll plainly see the difference between µTorrent and a client with its own cache. (If you don't have access to a fast connection, then please do not label some feature as unnecessary just because _you_ do not need it.)

* I am in no way suggesting that Firon is lying. I fully believe he is being honest, and really thinks what he wrote to be true. He is simply wrong, as some minimal testing would show.

[Firon]

It may be shared, but it's also HUGE (several hundred MB usually), which lets it cache a lot more data than a dedicated read cache. And you can tweak it to be more efficient, so to speak.

[geezer]

To reduce the amount Windows reads ahead, use FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS on the CreateFile system call.

[acd]

It may be shared, but it's also HUGE (several hundred MB usually), which lets it cache a lot more data than a dedicated read cache.

No. With a decent dedicated cache, like e.g. BitComet's, you can specify maximum and minimum amounts of memory to use, or even better, the minimum amount of free memory to maintain. You can have as much memory as you need for the _dedicated_ cache, the only limit being the physical memory available.

To reduce the amount Windows reads ahead, use FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS on the CreateFile system call.

But why would you do that? A good value for a torrent that uses 4MB pieces would be a bad value for a torrent that uses 256KB pieces. You can not be changing that parameter all the time, not to mention that typically you'd be seeding/leeching torrents with different piece sizes.

[sp1zy]

haw can a s/w be noisy??? its the wierdest thing i ever hurd.. hardware can be noisy offcorce if

u are using gramma pc lol....what you said i find it totaly odd and funny.. haw can a download maneger can be noisyer than the other lol.. am i missing somthing here guys?? am sorry man

i dont mean to laugh at this but i actuly went up and tyred to listen to my pc when u turrent is on

( i cant belive i did that) and the pc was extremly quite....why shouldnt it be anyway???

were is that noise is suppose to come from???

i think it could be one of ure pc fan... ot its ure hard drive sinning off..

i dont understand why u guys are replying with techenical data.. what dose the noise have to do

with a s/w at first place, is there somthing i dont know?? i want to know please if there is...

is downloading torrent dangerous to the hd?? like this guy say(his hd dont like u turrent) realy strange stuff

[acm2000]

lol i actually had to read, and reread the post above to make sense of it... of course software can be noisy, all depends on the HDD access requirements, when starting photoshop you'll hear your HDD going skitzo, with torrents accessing various bits of data all the time, your hdd has to work like a nike football maker to be able to keep up, especially if you have some insane 10mbps upload

[aadu]

suppose Ludde will code a cache into µT. my bet is we can't call it exactly µ then anymore [hint]Typical memory use less than 6 MB[/hint]

[splintax]

Even if he does code a cache, I imagine it can be disabled. Pretty much everything introduced since v1.0 can be disabled. If it's off by default, µTorrent's RAM usage is still micro.

To reduce the amount Windows reads ahead' date=' use FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS on the CreateFile system call.[/quote']

But why would you do that? A good value for a torrent that uses 4MB pieces would be a bad value for a torrent that uses 256KB pieces. You can not be changing that parameter all the time, not to mention that typically you'd be seeding/leeching torrents with different piece sizes.

A system call is something that the programmer implements, not something that the user does manually...

haw can a s/w be noisy??? its the wierdest thing i ever hurd.. hardware can be noisy offcorce if u are using gramma pc lol....

Sigh.. read the posts. He claims that µTorrent's caching is not as good as BitComet's because it uses Windows, and therefore his HDD makes more noise. And try to make some sense when writing, please.

[acd]

A system call is something that the programmer implements, not something that the user does manually...

You're correct, of course. I didn't read the sentence properly, and assumed geezer was talking about some registry parameter.

The main point of what I said still stands: there's no amount of tweaking by the end-user that will even remotely reach the efficiency of a good dedicated cache. (Why do I feel I'm flogging a dead donkey? :/)

[kokoko3k]

what dose the noise have to do

with a s/w at first place, is there somthing i dont know?? i want to know please if there is...

Its called "seeking".

Seeking occours only if a "software" requests a write or a read operation for a byte that can not be accessed using sequential access.

So yep, you're missing something.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I don't mind if my hd will last 3 months less, but i switched from bitcomet to utorrent and i found it very noisy.

Noisy? My computer has been running seven fans (from 80-120mm rated at 12V but running at 20V) for so long that it freaks me out when I work on someone's computer and can't hear it running.