uTorrent 1.4 download limiter

[Martin Levac]

ChaosBlade, your sentence is incomplete, it should read: If a program is designed to teach good etiquette by imposing limits on its users, I see no problem with that.

I see a problem with that. Teaching and imposing limits are incompatible by nature. All I learn from this limit is to set my upload to 6kB/s to get up to 750kB/s download. My connection allows it, I shouldn't be forced to get only 15kB/s.

If, on the other hand, the client prevents such behavior from other peers, the imposed limits serve no purpose because this client will not be able to persist in its behavior.

The imposed limits can be circumvented by external applications. The client is still vulnerable to bad behavior from other peers. In a swarm where all peers play nice, neither is a problem. In a swarm where many peers don't play nice, both are a problem.

ML

[dcorban]

Upload slot handling is one thing Bitcomet got right. It does exactly what some of you propose and others allude to. You tell it your maximum upload bandwidth and the minimum bandwidth you want per upload slot. It dynamically and automatically changes the number of upload slots as your upload speed changes.

[Martin Levac]

I didn't know that about BC. I have a few other ideas about a choker that could eliminate the supposed need for imposed limits, check this thread:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=4746

ML

[Switeck]

Upload slot handling is one thing Bitcomet got right.

Firon and others seem to think BitComet's upload slot handling is very broken.

So which is it?

(Screenshots anyone? ^.^)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

OK, with a 512kbps connection (about my type of connection), uTorrent would recommend about 4 upload slots per torrent, and a maximum of four torrents (3 of which are downloading), so that's about 16 slots maximum (and the last 4 within those 16 are kinda optional because you are seeding with it), and more like 4-8 ordinarily.

IIRC, BitComet generally says it'd create about 18 upload slots if I run one torrent, and somewhere about 10 each when 2 torrents run. Basically, this means BitComet tends to upload a lot less to each slot on average.

You tell me whether this is a good or bad thing.

[splintax]

Firon and others seem to think BitComet's upload slot handling is very broken.

See this thread:

I dont think bitcomet even has a working upload slot limit, Even now.

It has one on a per-torrent basis but it doesn't work at all. It completely ignores it. XD

Get over the limit, people. If you're going to cap your upload to less than 5 KiB/s, I'm sorry, but you don't deserve more than 30 KiB/s (6x5). I don't care what sort of restrictions your "admin" places on you - seed from a different connection if you really want higher download speeds.

[chaosblade]

/me waves a little 'go splintax' flag

[HaiRy]

Firon and others seem to think BitComet's upload slot handling is very broken.

See this thread:

I dont think bitcomet even has a working upload slot limit' date=' Even now.[/quote']

It has one on a per-torrent basis but it doesn't work at all. It completely ignores it. XD

Get over the limit, people. If you're going to cap your upload to less than 5 KiB/s, I'm sorry, but you don't deserve more than 30 KiB/s (6x5). I don't care what sort of restrictions your "admin" places on you - seed from a different connection if you really want higher download speeds.

I'm quite amazed at your ignorance to be honest. This download limiter may not affect you in any way, then great, I'm happy for you. But then I see no reason for you to become involved in this dicussion. I choose to cap my download at 5 Kb/s not because I'm a leech but because anything above that saturates my connection meaning not only can I not download as fast as I can, but any use of the internet is painfully slow.

[chaosblade]

I wonder how much it limits you, Then. The only upload connection that cant deal with the limit is 64kbit, and the highest download rate coupled with that ive seen around the world is 256kbits (which makes you lose, oh, 1-2kB/s of download because of the cap).

[HaiRy]

I've explained this earlier but I'll say it again.. 1 Mbit down and 128 Kbit up. In theory I should be able to get 12/13 Kb/s up and I can, but setting my upload rate at anything above 5 Kb/s saturates my connection completely and I'm only able to download at maybe 5 Kb/s max? It's an NTL Cable connection in the UK, feel free to check the figures if you can't take my word for it.

[Switeck]

HaiRy, there may be other bottlenecks/problems on your computer to cause that behavior.

It might even be a bug in µTorrent for all I know.

But bear with it and it should be sorted out.

For what it's worth, I hope being stuck downloading at 15 (or 30) KB/sec isn't causing all your torrents to fail.

I'd imagine at that slow speed, someone used to dial-up would just give up.

[BlackLion]

@HaiRy:

By any LONG stretch of the imagination, do you happen to have a USB modem? I had one of those back in the day and it exhbited that same type of behaviour. If you do I understand and sympathize. If you do I can safely say your connection sucks. If you dont I back out of this discussion completely as I have avoided it until this point although I agree with points from both sides of the argument but it seems like a hotbutton issue and I am unaffected by it but you sound exactly like I did a few years ago. Got rid of that thing and have had good fortune with my connections ever since. If you do have one, do whatever you have to do to get rid of it, you will be very happy you did.

[HaiRy]

Yep, it's the cable modem but unfortunatly I'm stuck with it for the time being anyway. At least until NTL supposedly upgrades us to 10 Mbit which I doubt'll happen this year knowing NTL.

[Firon]

USB modems are very problematic. :|

[BlackLion]

Yep, stick a fork in your connection until you can grab a NIC modem, USB is teh suX0rZ for 'braodband'.

[jroc]

I thought modems had both ethernet and USB connections? Some only have USB?

[splintax]

People seem to be acting like µTorrent doesn't allow you to limit it below 6 KiB/s at all. It still gives you 3 - 6 times the download depending on what version you're using (I can't remember if the latest betas have 6 or not).

If the concern is so great for you, why don't you just try capping to 6 KiB/s and see how that goes? Surely the difference between 5 KiB/s and 6 KiB/s can't be that great considering that limiting isn't 100% accurate anyway?

The only issue I understand here is the "moral issue" one; whether or not it is µTorrent's place to issue the limit. If you have a shitty upload speed, face it, BitTorrent isn't really for you anyway. If you're torrenting at work or something and the admins limit it, there is a reason for that! Go home and leech.

I can't see how people can say that I'm being ignorant. HaiRy, you misinterpreted my post - I was talking about people with admins limiting their connection. I don't quite understand exactly how I'm being "ignorant" anyway.

Oh, and I've seen some USB only modems. USB does indeed suck ass for modems.

[Firon]

stable = 3, latest beta = 6

[Non Default User]

uTorrent works fine with or without a built in speed limiter based on upload cap. It works fine because it closely adheres to the BT protocol despite this arbitrary limit imposed on the user. Nevertheless, arbitrary limits that do not reflect the BT protocol or the spirit of the BT protocol are a bad thing.

[...]

I agree. Intentionally crippling one's client either reflects a lack of understanding of the BT protocol, or exposes a weakness inherent in the protocol.

[Firon]

The protocol indeed does have weaknesses.

[Jacquerz]

This seems to be the biggest and most hated issue with uT, which is a shame because uT is probably the best BT client I've used.

I understand that the limiter was put in to hurt leechers, but it also ruins it for people who have a legit excuse like having a slow upload connection coupled with a fast download connection. Technically they are leeching, but its not really their fault.

Any chance that the limit may be relaxed in the future to something like 10x your u/l cap? Please! It would make all those people with legit excuses very happy and still discourage leechers even though I still think this feature won't discourage leeching, it will just encourage leechers to switch clients.

ps. Why were the specific numbers (6kbps u/l to remove limit on uT & dl cap = 6x your u/l cap) chosen?

[jroc]

edit: btw.. the one who suggested using an older version, that's just plain stupid. where's the rss support and all the goodies to come?

The reason it was mentioned is this: whats more important to u? RSS (and any other feature) or the download limit?

But so many bug fixes have came since the post, it is kinda stupid now....

But....someone did mention a way around the cap using a uTorrent option:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=46981#p46981

whether the weakness still exists, I dont know...

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I understand that the limiter was put in to hurt leechers, but it also ruins it for people who have a legit excuse like having a slow upload connection coupled with a fast download connection. Technically they are leeching, but its not really their fault.

Are you a "victim"? What kind of connection do you have?

ps. Why were the specific numbers (6kbps u/l to remove limit on uT & dl cap = 6x your u/l cap) chosen?

It was chosen to maximize the number of innocent people that won't be throttled. Even with a xxx Down/128kbps up connection, you should be able to maintain 6KB/s up. If you don't have even that you are probably on a modem and can't download all that fast anyway.

It used to be 3x. Ludde changed it to 6x to placate some of the screamers, but there are still many ungrateful people.

6x is already a joke when it comes to deterrence. At 5KB/s Up, you can get 30KB/s Down. That is NOT a half-bad speed. Even a 3x (15KB/s Down) isn't too awful. As a member of BitTorrent's "middle-strata" (6Mbps Down/ 640kbps Up Theoretical), I can tell you they are getting an Awfully Sweet Deal. Almost half the time I get 30KB/s class speeds while uploading at about 50KB/s. Now, you tell me, where is the fairness in the idea that I upload at ten times the rate and get the same speed as the guy uploading 5KB/s?

Why are they uploading at low speeds? A few have horrid upload limits, but there are others who deliberately crimp their upload to play MP games and make Internet Phone Calls while BTing. I cannot say I'm really sympathetic.

[1c3d0g]

Well fucking said. If you can't upload (for whatever reason, be it intentional or not), just_don't_use_BitTorrent! Use HTTP/FTP, Gnucleus, Kazaa or some other network that doesn't require uploading. But don't mess up BitTorrent swarms with your leeching behaviour. There. :/

[Jacquerz]

Almost half the time I get 30KB/s class speeds while uploading at about 50KB/s. Now, you tell me, where is the fairness in the idea that I upload at ten times the rate and get the same speed as the guy uploading 5KB/s?

Based on that point of view it is unfair towards you. Unfortunately everybody doesnt have the same speed internet connection, and it would be nearly impossible to have 1 program that caters for every situation. Some people will benefit while others lose out.

I only have a 128kbps connection. (u/l & d/l)

Luckily my ISP doesnt cap my u/l or download limits per month.

I do however have to cap my u/l so that I can still browse web pages while using uT, but even with the u/l capped I still u/l more than I d/l, so I dont see the point of the limiter as it doesnt really make that much of a difference for me anyway.

I was just thinking of people that are with ISPs that have a monthly limit on u/l & d/l throughput. In my experience using BT you will generally u/l more than you d/l depending on the available seeds, peers & demand. So people who get their u/l & d/l capped by their ISPs will have to limit their u/l speeds otherwise they might reach their monthly u/l limit before reaching their monthly d/l limit. But then again, people with those kind of limits dont usually have a fast connection anyway?

So many sides to this debate and almost everyone has a valid point... but in the end BT is all about sharing so having some kind of mechanism in place to ensure that is a good idea, but it has to be fair as well. Based on your explanation of why the current limits were chosen it does seem fair, but I think many people will still complain until the restriction is relaxed a bit more.