niksus Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 @DreadWingKnight: net.calc_overhead = true@Switeck: So I am really that unfortunate to have 20:1 dl/ul speed from ISP, and this is the overhead? If that's the case I can't really seed before downloading the complete torrent first, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 That 20:1 ratio is not a result of your ISP, it's caused by TCP networking overheads and/or other problems! Even the BitTorrent client type (Vuze/Azureus, Deluge, Transmission, BitComet, etc) you're downloading from may be poorly written and increasing the amount of overheads.Even a "perfect" single TCP seed (or HTTP) connection has worse than a 50:1 download-to-upload ratio from your point of view...meaning that if you're downloading from them at 50 KB/sec then you're using more than 1 KB/sec UPLOAD to continue at that download rate.uTP connections could potentially increase the DL/UL ratio above 50:1, but probably won't do so by much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niksus Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I'm getting 12/0.5 Mb/s dl/ul from my ISP, so it's close to the overhead ratio of 20:1 that you've mentioned earlier. That's what I meant, not that it's my ISP fault.The seeder client was listed as libtorrent 0.11.9, so it seems that + small pieces are the culprit in that case. I never suspected that overhead can reach such values.Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamePaul Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Did I get it right that compatibility issues with Jetico firewall on XP SP3 will not be investigated and solved?Another question: during beta-testing can be posted debug version of uTorrent along with symbols? This could help to resolve problems if third party is involved (like Jetico in this case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 niksus,The speed of your line is totally unrelated to TCP overheads. ISPs have just been giving far more download than upload for years, with little reason to change now due to entrenched infrastructures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Switeck:uTP connections could potentially increase the DL/UL ratio above 50:1, but probably won't do so by much.I never understood why... in general using UDP should be more efficient then TCP since you can better tailor it to your own application's protocol and should save overhead data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fowl Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 Increasing the ratio *is* being more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 rafi, I mean how fast you download (50 KB/sec)...with a (1 KB/sec) upload speed "cost" for doing so in overheads. You'd want the upload cost to be low for your download speed to be more efficient.Normally, TCP downloads have about a 50:1 DL:UL ratio at best. uTP connections are very unlikely to increase that over 100:1 but may barely break 50:1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussels Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 ok, random problem.Running win 7 RC1 x64, and utorrent 1.8.3 - running the installer to update to this version utorrent-1.9-alpha-15380.upx.exe) seems to do nothing - it stays as version 1.8.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fowl Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 You need to make sure µTorrent isn't running when you run the "installer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Registered Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 19380 for me aswell as previous beta is not adhering to max upload speeds in the setting or rmb drop list. They are always going faster than setBy faster it's meant to 10 kB/s and more kB/s than set, maxing out bandwidth up/down. Throttling utorrent downloads and slowing considerable other inet softwares running.Is this corrected for the next beta ?1.8.2 or 1.8.3 was corrrect. I could use those versions, although nothing is gained by sticking to old versions. In the way of progress for utorrent and feedback for it if everyone used old versions. Just a quick update, if have just one download running and set in setting for one only it remains as should within +1 to 2kB/s. Seeding on/off makes no difference or ihow many seeds in setting set for uploading. Just tried with 1 download only in setting and have tried with another download in paused state and still ok. Not ideal downloading one at a time when plenty of download bandwidth availble for more, but may point you in the right direction to fixing this. sorry though i was onto something there seems not, but isn't going further than +5kB/s so maybe something ? Though still more than set, let's see what you find for next version for us to try.Keep up the good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussels Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 fowl: I didnt have utorrent running when i updated. The installer comes up, click next... then 1.8.3 starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewlblue Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Same problem here, running Windows 7 x64 RC Build 7100 and it wouldn't let me upgrade to 1.9 from 1.8.1 or 1.8.3. I had to uninstall first then install 1.9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwestgoh Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Upgrade? Just replace the exe file with the 1.9 version, done. (Make sure it's not running when you does so.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fowl Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Crash: http://www.mediafire.com/file/mmn12lunnzl/uTorrent.exe.2848.rar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Choi Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Is this problem specific to Windows 7 64? Has anyone gotten the installer to work properly using regular Windows 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ichpuchtli Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Installer worked fine in one slimmed W7-64 ("running as" adm). Just tried once, in this specific tweaked system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hharis Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Richard Choi:Is this problem specific to Windows 7 64? same problem with windows 7 x86. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagisan Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Is this problem specific to Windows 7 64? Has anyone gotten the installer to work properly using regular Windows 7?A fresh install works fine on Windows 7, I think its upgrading from an older version that doesn't work properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synbios Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I never understood why... in general using UDP should be more efficient then TCP since you can better tailor it to your own application's protocol and should save overhead data.UDP is an unthrottled, connection-less protocol. Usually UDP is used for streaming video or audio, high bandwidth applications where when bits are lost people would not notice. Essentially your computer just spits out data and "hopes" that it reaches it's destination. Because Torrenting/uTorrent in nature automatically ensure that all data is received, using UDP is not a problem. UDP will make better use of bandwidth because handshaking does not occur, thus less overhead. Also, in TCP it is possible that clients can tell other clients to "slow down" if they are outputting too much data for the network. Thus why TCP is said to be throttled. In UDP there is no throttling, all clients can output as much as data as they want, as fast as they want, into the network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Registered Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Just wondering if this correct with v1.9 build15380 that with 1 torent active that is seeded. Someone is uploading while at same time, downloading betwen 5 - 10 kB/s. This is over many minutes, question is why download at that many kB/s when the torrent is 100% and seeding ?I have stopped that torrent for now to see what you say here. Maybe i'm giving away more than torrent data for which they're downloading from me ?Or is this normal !! I don't ever recall having this seen before of many years, running various torrent softwares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Those other torrent programs have certainly not shown the probable download "costs" for uploading quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Registered Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Neither has utorrent ever before shown the same costs. First time i have seen this happen, here's how to invoke it, and fix it?Bandwidth - Alternate upload rate when not downloading (kB/s): - tick - 0To stop it downloading higer rates (why should it the torrent is seeding) - put a figure in the box of yor max upload rate.I have the same speed speed of without - 0 - i the box and with a figure as with a - 0Just now i down have higher download leech out, heck knows what they were downloading.Max download on the seed now is 0.1 - 2.0 kB/s and never any more as was as writen above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Or, you could just set net.calc_overhead to FALSE! (it's in advanced settings)But then you're only HIDING the real amount of download used...which is probably LOWER than what other BitTorrent clients actually use while uploading at the same speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Registered Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 Sorry if hoped on any devs sensitive coding, no idea that it would of been. Think of this then more of what shouldn't be done, if the lable doesn't say auto 0 it means just that.No i'll leave it as is now, just won't set to 0 again for that one. Tried 0 for auto, though it didn't say it would be auto. So far back to normal never gone over 2.0kB/s since, as far as i can tell.SET net.calc_overhead to FALSE - I have it set as TRUE, which is the way i would prefer it to be. Thanks for pointing this out.btw: I'm still interested to know what it would have been download at 5- kB/s, it was a seeded file already finished (no more download needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.