new version and the old...

[sergiorodrigues]

i first must say that i love utorrent, and allways looked forward to a new version.

i also know that for some to dl, others have to share.

i apparently think that that was one of the major objectives in this new version.

unfortunatly, to my amasement, i found myself with DL 4KB and UL 6KB with my upload maxed out. i couldnt even browse the net...

obvisouly, for someone that has 2Mb DL/128Kb UL, this was very unsatisfactory.

so this morning, with the same statistics, i decided that this was unsatisfactory and decided to go back to my old 1.3.1 version.

and guess what, i immediatly get avg DL 50KB, UL 5 with my upload maxed out.

now, i ask you, what do you expect me to do ? use the new version with new features ?

no thank you.

a message from a "unsatisfied with the new version" user.

[Firon]

Lower net.max_halfopen to 8? And uh, try turning off DHT I guess.

DId you use the speed guide by any chance?

[sergiorodrigues]

in the old version i have DHT turned on and have found it usefull. (cant live without it, sorry)

the advanced options were all the same. i changed no advanced option.

i did use the speed guide on the new version, and it put me making 1 dl at a time and ul at 9KB.

result : 2KB dl at best... i guess it all depends on the torrent that is currently downloading.

as i cant continualy check to see which of the torrents will give me good results (a torrent that has users giving me good uploads), making 1 dl at a time is ridiculous!

the speed guide sucks! i obviously didnt use it twice.

what do i think ?

1-you cant just dl from 1 torrent as you will probably end up with a torrent with a user uploading at 0.1KB.

you have to have a reasonable amount of torrents dl so you get a good change to get a torrent that is giving good results.

1b-small dl amounts in different torrents add up to a good dl amount. i am not going to find someone ul a single torrent at 50KB to me...

2-limit the upload to at least 6KB ? utorrent has allways used more than the max amount i tell it.

3-in my opinion there is a major "concept" failure in the new version of utorrent. what would explain that the same options in version 1.3.1 give me 50KB dl and 5KB dl in 1.4 ?

4-turn off DHT ? obviously what u intend is for me to reduce my upload traffic. is DHT taking me 1KB ul and making me go from 50KB dl to 4KB dl ? i dont think so, but it that is the case, then the upload limit, should take into acount if DHT is turned on or not, before is gives "download limited" or whatever it is it says...

while we are in the subject of things i think, version 1.4 would only probably work great if it had artificial inteligense, and only connected to users that are giving good uploads in all torrents, and ignore the 0.1KB ones. dont connect to the guys that can only ul at 0.1KB thus reducing ul traffic. (but still 0.1+0.1 is better than 0.1) that is the only way i see for V1.4 to work, until then, im stiking with V1.3.1 or in the worst case, if im unable to use 1.3.1, move on to another client.

[splintax]

obvisouly, for someone that has 2Mb DL/128Kb UL, this was very unsatisfactory.

2 Mbps = 256 KiB/s max

128 Kbps = 16 KiB/s max

Back when I was on a 512/128k internet connection, I never saw any more than 12 KiB/s on BitTorrent. 6 KiB/s is a bit crappy, but still, I wouldn't complain about 8.

turn off DHT ? obviously what u intend is for me to reduce my upload traffic. is DHT taking me 1KB ul and making me go from 50KB dl to 4KB dl ?

Yes, the additional 1 KiB upload could be slowing down acks and therefore slowing down download speed.

How many seeds and peers are there on the typical torrent that you use? It sounds like coincidence to me, but I'll reserve judgement 'til I know.

[sergiorodrigues]

lets not discuss the past, we know the speeds then were slower.

i will not turn DHT off. period.

all my torrents have different seeds/peers. i cannot give you a exact figure.

it is not coincidence. ever since i started using utorrent i have gotten 50KB dl/5 or 6 or 7 ul (even though i have ul limit 5) EVERY day.

i will return home today, see what dl/ul statistics i have and use V1.4 again.

i will not change 1 thing in all options with the exception of changing the ul from 5 to 6KB as i have no other option.

i will report the results after 30min of running V1.4.

i predict my dl will drop from 50KB to 4KB.

if 1.4 will not give me the same results, i am sorry but the changes made for 1.4 are crap.

[ICleolion]

How about you try uploading at 9 or 10. Why just 6?

[sergiorodrigues]

let me state what i said:

if i put ul = 9 then i get dl = 4KB

if i put ul = 5 then i get dl = 50KB

now, can u spot the difference ?

thats a 1250% increase in my dl.

[ICleolion]

well in v1.4 ur definitely not gonna get a dl of 50kb for 5 upload. And if 9 upload is choking your connection then you got a really crappy 128kb up connection.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

well in v1.4 ur definitely not gonna get a dl of 50kb for 5 upload. And if 9 upload is choking your connection then you got a really crappy 128kb up connection.

Maybe a defect in the download limiter? Download limitation is supposed to be much trickier than upload.

Any, Segro, if 5KB up is working for you, try 6KB up so the limiter (which is apparently not working perfectly for you) will be removed entirely. Remember, the Speed Guide is purely generic.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

i did use the speed guide on the new version, and it put me making 1 dl at a time and ul at 9KB. result : 2KB dl at best... i guess it all depends on the torrent that is currently downloading. as i cant continualy check to see which of the torrents will give me good results (a torrent that has users giving me good uploads), making 1 dl at a time is ridiculous!

the speed guide sucks! i obviously didnt use it twice.

Actually, it IS the correct number with a 9KB theoretical connection. You probably have 2-3 upload slots/upload. Which means you are only squirting 3-4.5KB to each slot, which is hardly a great rate. One more download and your uploads will be in the 1.5-2.25KB/slot range, which is actually subpar. With your real 5KB/s upload you are barely passable with 1 torrent running (IIRC the rule-of-thumb for "passable" is about 2KB/s/slot). While the mechanism is not perfect, it is enormously unlikely anybody will want to give a guy like you a lot.

what do i think ?

1-you cant just dl from 1 torrent as you will probably end up with a torrent with a user uploading at 0.1KB.

Actually, if it really IS consistently downloading at that crap speed, IIRC uTorrent won't count it as a torrent, so you can add a second one (maybe even a third) and it'd get bumped off only if the first torrent ever got running.

you have to have a reasonable amount of torrents dl so you get a good change to get a torrent that is giving good results.

What's "reasonable"? You are actually reducing the probability you'd get a good result out of any torrent by dividing your thin already attention.

1b-small dl amounts in different torrents add up to a good dl amount. i am not going to find someone ul a single torrent at 50KB to me...

If you don't have ethics, I understand BitComet is great

2-limit the upload to at least 6KB ? utorrent has allways used more than the max amount i tell it.

Try that - the limiter flicks off that way.

3-in my opinion there is a major "concept" failure in the new version of utorrent. what would explain that the same options in version 1.3.1 give me 50KB dl and 5KB dl in 1.4 ?

Strange, most people report improvements...

4-turn off DHT ? obviously what u intend is for me to reduce my upload traffic. is DHT taking me 1KB ul and making me go from 50KB dl to 4KB dl ? i dont think so, but it that is the case, then the upload limit, should take into acount if DHT is turned on or not, before is gives "download limited" or whatever it is it says...

Well, you can try crimping the DHT as well - there is a switch. Try setting that one to 512 (bytes) and see how that goes.

while we are in the subject of things i think, version 1.4 would only probably work great if it had artificial inteligense, and only connected to users that are giving good uploads in all torrents, and ignore the 0.1KB ones. dont connect to the guys that can only ul at 0.1KB thus reducing ul traffic. (but still 0.1+0.1 is better than 0.1) that is the only way i see for V1.4 to work, until then, im stiking with V1.3.1 or in the worst case, if im unable to use 1.3.1, move on to another client.

Doubt that would happen due to Ludde's personal beliefs. If you are really desperate, you can enter the IPs of repeat "offenders" into ipfilter.dat. However, considering that your upload policy (multiple torrents running on a connection with a practical 5KB/s upload rate), you probably aren't much better than those guys, so methinks it is just a wee-bit hypocritical of you to propose this. If such a feature actually came up, you will likely be on that list of IPs to be banned.

[sergiorodrigues]

ok, i have arrived home and checked the dl/ul statistics:

dl at around 70KB, ul at around 6KB

stopped V1.3.1

started V1.4

increased ul limit from 5 to 6

left utorrent running for 30 min

dl at 4KB, ul at 7KB

at 45 min noticed a quick peak: 30KB dl, 6KB ul

at 46 min statistics go back to: 5KB dl, 7KB ul

run for another 30 min at this speed

getting dl 15KB, ul 6KB

SUMARY:

using V1.3.1 - for 5KB ul i get 70KB dl

using V1.4 - for 6KB i get at best 15KB

i assume that V1.4 idea of fair is to give less 55KB for anyone who just uploads 6KB

set ul to 9KB

getting 15KB dl, 9KB ul

stopped V1.4

started V1.3.1

set ul to 5

run for 30 min

getting: 50KB dl, 6KB ul

what suggestions do you have ?

i have no intention of becoming know as a bad uploader,

but i dont think 1KB ul less should be punished with a reduction of 55KB dl

i also dont see any increase in "contribution" from any of my sources for increasing my ul while using V1.4

dont take me badly, i want to optimize my dl while giving everyone the best i can.

please give your suggestions.

[Firon]

1.4 only has a cap for 1-5KB/s global upload

[sergiorodrigues]

Doubt that would happen due to Ludde's personal beliefs. If you are really desperate, you can enter the IPs of repeat "offenders" into ipfilter.dat. However, considering that your upload policy (multiple torrents running on a connection with a practical 5KB/s upload rate), you probably aren't much better than those guys, so methinks it is just a wee-bit hypocritical of you to propose this. If such a feature actually came up, you will likely be on that list of IPs to be banned.

i was not implying that you ban users because they can only upload (or they only want to upload) at 0.1KB or 1KB.

what i was implying was that :

1-utorrent use up the upload limit for uploads.

2-utorrent have a global minimum upload for each upload to each peer.

3-utorrent connect in decreasing order of download speed to each peer that is downloading until your upload traffic reaches its maximum bandwith

you would get the fastest downloads, you would give the best upload you could, and you would not kill your upload bandwith by connecting to slower peers.

if utorrent already does this, i am sorry for not noticing it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

i was not implying that you ban users because they can only upload (or they only want to upload) at 0.1KB or 1KB.

what i was implying was that :

1-utorrent use up the upload limit for uploads.

Of course. It generally does that on my machine.

2-utorrent have a global minimum upload for each upload to each peer.

You can't really set a minimum upload. Sometimes you just can't upload that much to a particular peer. You can only decide that approximately using the upload slot system.

3-utorrent connect in decreasing order of download speed to each peer that is downloading until your upload traffic reaches its maximum bandwith

Banning, lower the prioritization, doesn't matter. The point is that you want a system imposed that deliberately penalizes slow uploaders. That's fine, except you should consider the fact that you are a slow uploader. You aren't particularly fast in theory, your network is even slower in practice and worst of all you choose to divide what's left into a who bunch of slots when you can really properly supply about two total. Which means the first thing any similar system would do is bite your butt.