SanctimoniousApe Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Thought I'd post this here as I rec'd no immediate response over on the new version announcement thread.Have tried the "Speed Guide" feature, but am not really seeing the improvement. My old settings of 8 active torrents / 7 DL (max 30 connections per) got me DL speeds in the range of 150K-250K typically, but with the recommended 3 active /2 DL (max 80 connections per) I'm seeing maybe 60-90K. Granted for two torrents that's pretty reasonable, I suppose, but certainly not more efficient overall. My (crappy) ISP is Comcast and I appear to have something like 4Mbps/384Kbps. My old settings came about after much testing.I used to use BitLord and get as high as 400K DL, but stopped when I read of BitComet's cheating - BL was supposedly an offshoot of BC (which I've never used) and there seemed to be some question about BL's fairness as well. While I of course would like to get the things I want as quickly as possible, I try to respect the community, too. I don't mind not getting speeds quite as high as I used to under BL in order to ensure fairness, but at the same time I don't want to have to wait 10x longer to get what I am after.Suggestions? (Non-flame) Comments?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 You don't need to use the speed guide, you can use your own settings if you want... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 So change the settings yourself and see what works best for you. It's just "generic" settings anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dznutz Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 out of curiosity switch back to bitlord and look for peers who are seeding you a lot. note their ip and the number of requests you make.then go back to utorrent and find those peers. are the requests still the same?i find that utorrent really likes the magic number 2. bitcomet starts at 5 and incrementally goes up accordingly to available bandwith whereas rarely for me will utorrent go beyond a 2. sometimes i get lucky and find someone with 50+.anyway, great client nonetheless. props to ludde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Levac Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 dznutz, the numbers you refer to is the minimum amount of data to request. These parameters can normally be changed within the original BT client but not within uTorrent. I requested such a feature but haven't gotten a proper response yet.For the BitTorrent client, these settings are named:--download_slice_size <arg>How many bytes to query for per request. (defaults to 16384)--max_slice_length <arg>maximum length slice to send to peers, larger requests are ignored (defaults to 131072)Faster connections would benefit from higher values, obviously.Post your thoughts here for this specific feature:http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=4273ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapustin Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I'm hoping that the speed wizard gets more settings put into it. The more comprehensive and accurate that speed guide is, the better for the network, since most people will use it out of being unsure as to the right settings to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 You don't need to use the speed guide, you can use your own settings if you want... :/Ya, I did that, but after giving it another several hours it seems v1.4's speed limiter is hard-coded to a 3:1 ratio - I couldn't get above the 90K I mentioned, and in fact the average throughput dropped to 40-70K. I'm back on v1.3x until this is resolved.This is indeed a nice client (been using it a couple of months now), but I'm not sure I like the direction Ludde's starting to go in - I can understand his intentions, but the introduction of these new built-in limitations seem a bit too inflexible and heavy-handed for my tastes...dznutz - that's more hassle than I have time to bother with, sorry. I just wanted a nice, light-weight client that was easy to use and did what it was supposed to do (which is why I chose µTorrent after I found out about the BC controversy). I guess I may have to go searching about again if Ludde continues the Big Brother-style tactics of handling things. I feel that I am once again being reminded of why open source is a "good thing" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 the speed limiter ONLY applies to upload caps of 1-5, you guys don't seem to get this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 I got it, but I ain't buyin' it. I ran for many hours under v1.4 and every time I checked the peak DL rate was under ~90K (sometimes a LOT lower). Been running v1.3 for a couple hours now and it's not once been below 100+K. My UL limit has been 35K the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 the speed limiter ONLY applies to upload caps of 1-5, you guys don't seem to get this.@Firon, I've just noticed something - it seems to me that the upload limiter does not work at all above the "famous" 6 !!!!! 5 works .The setup: V 1.4, Win98SE, one "active" torrent DLing with a limit of 6. Reference tool - DU meter. I might post this in the V1.4 thread with a screen-shot . Can someone else confirm this with another reference tool . Maybe my DU meter is not setup correctly.Side effects: all other Internet activities are VERY slow or with timeouts !!!Edit: DHT - was Enabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 SanctimoniousApe: my upload cap is usually 39 when downloading (sometimes I drop it to 30), and I haven't been getting speeds below 350 KB/s.rafi: DHT on? 'Cause I capped mine to 6 and it stuck to the value pretty well. cFosSpeed showed slightly higher values sometimes but that's because it includes TCP overhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Out of curiousity, what are your other settings (max peers/torrent, UL slots/torrent, max active torrents, max DL torrents, global max DL rate, etc.)?According to my calcs, 38K is probably the highest I could go ((384Kbps / 8 (bits in a Byte)) * 0.8 (subtract 20% for TCP/IP overhead) = 38.4KBps -- gee I coulda just divided by 10...) although even at 35Kbps (which was set by the new "Speed Guide") there is a very noticeable slow-down when browsing, so I drop it further at those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 75, 4, 3, 3, 0 (I usually only run 1 torrent at a time but I have a few torrents that have very few/no leechers so I run them all at once).Anyway, run the speed test and see what speeds you actually get, then set your upload cap accordingly. Many ISPs advertise a certain amount but in reality you don't even get close, even with TCP overhead. The tcp overhead is supposed to be ~13%, but the values seem really wrong in my experience (too high). Namely because my upload cap is 463051 bits, which translates to 56.5 KB/s, so if the overhead really was 13%, my max upload rate would be 49, which is a few KB too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Okay, thanks, Firon - I'll try your settings for a while & see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 SanctimoniousApe: run a speed test on DSLreports and find out what YOUR actual maximum upload speed is, then use 75-80% of that or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Have done this before, but did it again just for shits & giggles. Same as it ever was: ~4Mb/~349Kb (which works out to ~35K up @ 80% overhead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Weird. Um, try lowering your cap to 32 or 33 and see if you get better results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well, left it running overnight with these settings (and UL cap @ 32) and still getting only ~100K -- about half what I used to. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Hmm. How many peers/seeds in the swarm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 My most populated of the active DLs at this moment (Peak overall DL at the moment is 82K - yuck):Seeds: 8(21) Peers: 54(119) DL: 28.9 UL: 9.4The others, though less populated, all seem to be limited to the 3:1 ratio or less (less being more often the case) -- only occassionally and only very briefly does it spike significantly above the 3:1 ratio.It occurred to me to mention that I have ipfilter enabled with ~88K entries exported from PeerGuardian (which I also have running, because I know of no automated way to update the ipfilter.dat file like PG updates itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 That's not exactly a very populated torrent for speed testing. I'd try something with at least a couple thousand people on it for concrete bandwidth testing. For all you know, half of those users could be on dialup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Well, about the time I posted previously, I upped the active DLs to 5 to include one I knew had more participation and still the same pattern persists (although I'll give it more than just an hour before writing it off, I honestly don't expect much difference).Seeds: 13(262) Peers: 57(805) DL: 17.9 UL: 7.0While writing this, the DL has fluctuated between ~8K and ~22K while the UL has remained within about 1K or so of 7K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Splitting your upload between a lot of torrents gives you much lower speeds generally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctimoniousApe Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Yes, I understand that's supposed to be the case, but that's not what I'm seeing. As stated in my initial post at the top of this thread, when using 8 active / 7 DL / 30 connections per torrent I used to get twice the throughput that I'm seeing now. I've also tried a few new ports to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 I must have a similar problem, although I only have a 1Mbit/256kbps connection.Either with one or two torrents open, I'm getting a maximum of 60kbs/sec while my upload is steadily at 22kbs/sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.