daftasbrush Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 I'm happy enough with the rational behind only disconnecting "inactive" peers when there are more peers than my torrent maximum.And I heartily agree with the 5 minutes (300s) minimum of the "timeout value".However, could you make uT check the Waited value, as well as the "inactive" value....I've been getting "quite a few" (about 10-15 out of 50) peers with "Inactive" times of only about 1 minute, but with "Waited" values of 1000'sWorst seen so far -> Waited : 27,000s Inactive : 5sBut I get quite a few in the 3-6000's too.I'm not getting any data from these peers (or sending anything to them), and there are plenty of other peers I could connect to, if only uT would disconnect from these.IMO, if a peer is unable / unwilling to send 16kb in 5 minutes then there are often plenty others out there who can / will.Any thoughts?Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 i want to disconnect them when i want (whatever i have set in the options).. however it disconnects them at about 5 minutes of inactivity and sometimes i connect to 10-15 peers all inactive and i have to wait 5 minutes to get another fresh group of peers which seed.. i want to kick them out on the 30th-60th second.. actually if they don't start uploading immediately they're useless and they'll never start)my ISP limits the maximum connections to 50 so every single connection is vital.. i don't want useless peers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 If you don't wait at least 5 minutes on a connection, you aren't giving the BT protocol time to work.actually if they don't start uploading immediately they're useless and they'll never startI'm sorry, but this is pure bullshit. Just because they don't start uploading to you immediately, it doesn't mean they won't start uploading to you in the next 5 minutes. It also doesn't mean that they won't start flooding your connection at minute 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 I didnt know ISPs can limit the conections, is that normal thing to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 in bulgaria it is (at least for my ISP) and the maximum number of connection is 50! that's why i want them out immediately if they don't do anything.. what would u do with 50 connections? maybe u have 50-100 connections per torrent.. what time does the BT protocol need? i'm connected to the peer (the peer is connected to me) it should start immediately.. there should be a option to kick 'em out.. if u don't want u wouldn't enable it.. actually there is such an option but even if i set kick them on the 60th second it doesn't work until the 5th minute..EDIT: you're probably shocked about the number of connections...and how am i supposed to use my complete bandwith (1 Mbit/1Mbit) and browse, chat, and so on with just 50 connections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 in bulgaria it is (at least for my ISP) and the maximum number of connection is 50! that's why i want them out immediately if they don't do anything.. what would u do with 50 connections? maybe u have 50-100 connections per torrent.. what time does the BT protocol need? i'm connected to the peer (the peer is connected to me) it should start immediately.. there should be a option to kick 'em out.. if u don't want u wouldn't enable it.. actually there is such an option but even if i set kick them on the 60th second it doesn't work until the 5th minute..EDIT: you're probably shocked about the number of connections...and how am i supposed to use my complete bandwith (1 Mbit/1Mbit) and browse, chat, and so on with just 50 connectionsSucks to hear that, but:1) Ludde is never going to give people a easily abusable right-click ban function.2) Even BitComet, with its ultra-rapid recycling action (which is considered a cheat along with other even more egregious ones) and high general aggressiveness, cannot get more than a fraction of its connections to give out data at any given moment. BitTorrent is simply not an instantaneous thing or even close. Five minutes is minimum, and sometimes it can be a much longer wait. I've had torrents that took 20 minutes to start getting flow.P.S. What is the difference between Inactive and Waited as shown in uTorrent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 lol i never asked for such a ban feature.. and i think 5 minutes is quite a long period for private trackers (which i use).. there are sometimes thousands of peers and i want to get the best and not those who seed with 2 k/s every 3 minutes.. if i could get a single peer who uploads with the maximum speed for me that would be perfect.. i could save as much as i could from my precious 50 connections isn't the inactive time disconnect option in the advanced options for that? for setting how much should µTorrent wait until it replaces them with fresh peers.. it's not a good idea for µTorrent not to consider the value in there.. maybe there should some kind of a border (let's say 30-40 seconds) but 5 minutes...some people can download a whole dvd in 5 minutes such a long period i want it to be reduced to 30-40 seconds maxium by default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 5 minutes is the minimum time for the disconnect inactive interval. Anything less and you aren't letting the BT protocol have time to work at all. You may think it's a long period, but it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftasbrush Posted January 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 P.S. What is the difference between Inactive and Waited as shown in uTorrent?As far as I can see....Inactive is the time elapsed since ANY communication was received.. not just data but status, Bitfield messages etcWaited is the time elapsed between the request for a block being confirmed (peer says "OK. I'll send it") and "NOW"... Mostly "Waited" is only a few seconds because all the data for the block is received and further requests are sent.It seems that peers can "OK" a block, then not send the data (all the data)... to be expected....BUT They do keep communicating in some way which resets the "Inactive" timer.... which means they just sit there "Hogging" a peer slot for HOURS (27,000s is 7.5hours).. and when you've got 20-25% of your peer slots tied up with these (peers with waiting at 1000+) it gets rather annoying (and slow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuaki Shimazaki Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 BUT They do keep communicating in some way which resets the "Inactive" timer.... which means they just sit there "Hogging" a peer slot for HOURS (27,000s is 7.5hours).. and when you've got 20-25% of your peer slots tied up with these (peers with waiting at 1000+) it gets rather annoying (and slow)I suspect one of them is the "Keepalive" symbol, which I personally feel is rather hypocritical. I agree that the standard should be reset to Wait time rather than Inactive time if this is really how it works.lol i never asked for such a ban feature..You said you wanted the right to "want them out immediately if they don't do anything". Since this kind of setting is impossible to set as an automatic function, what you really want as far as I can see is a Ban-at-Will feature.and i think 5 minutes is quite a long period for private trackers (which i use)..Not really.there are sometimes thousands of peers and i want to get the best and not those who seed with 2 k/s every 3 minutes.. if i could get a single peer who uploads with the maximum speed for me that would be perfect..Unfortunately, Ludde has a principle against stuff that leaves the slowpokes out (same reason why Ban-at-Will features would never arrive). Also, practically, it is virtually impossible for you to tell why a guy is being slow. It could be deliberate, truly a slow connection, or just a temporary thing - you ban him the second before he frees up slots and can give you mega downloads. You just don't know.i could save as much as i could from my precious 50 connections smile isn't the inactive time disconnect option in the advanced options for that? for setting how much should µTorrent wait until it replaces them with fresh peers.. it's not a good idea for µTorrent not to consider the value in there.. maybe there should some kind of a border (let's say 30-40 seconds) but 5 minutes...some people can download a whole dvd in 5 minutes smile such a long period i want it to be reduced to 30-40 seconds maxium by defaultIn practice, 5 minutes is nothing in BitTorrent time to the vast majority of users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 that's why there is a setting for u to change according to everyone's preferencesi don't want to right click and kick them, i want the time to be reduced to 30-60 seconds (minimum, not 5 minutes)if u set 5 seconds it will override it to 60 seconds for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 Like said before, Anything below 5mins is simply not useful since the BT protocol didnt get to work his charms yet ;]And i do believe the BT protocol can provide for a better solution rather then a single person's whim (No offense meant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Levac Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Terminating connections after 5 minutes of inactivity is required for the BT protocol to work properly. How often the client checks for inactive peers is another matter altogether. If the client checks every 5 minutes for inactive peers that have been inactive for 5 minutes, it will permit the client's peer pool to be filled with inactive peers for that 5 minutes. If, instead it checks more often like every 30 seconds for peers that have been inactive for 5 minutes, it will refresh its peer pool quicker while still maintaining the 5 minutes inactivity requirement for connection termination.Adding the wait status as an added parameter to determine if the client keeps or loses the peer is probably a good thing as well. The point of disconnecting inactive peers is to trade data, not just to say hello to new peers for 5 minutes. Another reason to integrate some sort of choker.ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venimus Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I am from Bulgaria too and I use 2Mbit ADSL. I asume that dAbReAkA uses ADSL aswell. It is not the provider that limit the connections. It is the ADSL protocol having that limitation. So you should not blame BTC. Anyway i think lowering the inactive peer timout should be a good tweak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 i'm not using ADSL.. i'm on a LAN and connecting through PPPOE in my case the provider limits the connections to 50 not the protocolyes should be a good tweak.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Lowering the inactive interval so that the peers don't have time to go through the required steps in the protocol before you disconnect them is a good tweak?I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 steps in the protocol?if 5 minutes is the normal time of the BT protocol to start working i can say that it's not designed well..there are peers which u connect to but they don't want to send.. if they don't start sending data immediately (maximum 1-2 minutes) they probably won't do so..normal peers start uploading data just a second after i'm connected to them.. don't tell me that it needs 5 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 if they don't start sending data immediately (maximum 1-2 minutes) they probably won't do so..How do you know this for a fact?You don't do you?Take a look at the section titled "Choking and Optimistic Unchoking" at http://wiki.theory.org/BitTorrentSpecificationGranted the optimistic unchoke cycles are low, but when the other peers have 50+ peers to cycle, 50x30=1500. Even with the 3x advantage given, that's STILL 500 seconds (eight minutes) before an optimistic unchoke could get to you.normal peers start uploading data just a second after i'm connected to them.. don't tell me that it needs 5 minutesI won't tell you AGAIN.The world does not revolve around you. If you want everything to be instant, go find a different download method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 As expected DWK just laid the smackdown. You're a brave and/or stupid person to argue with DWK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 What DreadWingKnight is trying to say is that if this "feature" gets implemented, it'll cause massive disruptions in swarm activity and totally ruin things. In your very specific case (since you're on a LAN) I can see your point in lowering the value. Unfortunately, it'll bring much more chaos (= evil) than it'll bring harmony (= good). So I'm afraid "for the best interest of everyone" this idea will have to stay like that - just an idea, nothing more. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 it doesn't revolve around me but i'm not the only one that wants that implementedif the peer is choking me it should be replaced with a new one.. waiting for a couple of minutes for eventual optimistic unchoke is a waste ot time/slotsit will greately increase the performance for everyone..µTorrent would see that this peer doesn't upload, change it with another one getting more download speed (distributing the file much quicker and providing the ability to seed more pieces) or upload speed as welltell what is the average BT user losing from that feature?obviously he gets better peers == better speed == less download time == more pieces finished faster == more pieces to upload to the othereverybody is happy, are they?EDIT: and why not arguing? at the worst case i'll at least have learnt something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 it doesn't revolve around me but i'm not the only one that wants that implementedLudde has already said that 5 minutes is the minimum. He's not changing it.if the peer is choking me it should be replaced with a new one.. waiting for a couple of minutes for eventual optimistic unchoke is a waste ot time/slotsNot if that peer has better upload than the one you end up with after you change, and not if you end up having to wait longer for the new peer to unchoke you. You're just giving yourself more wait time in the long run if all the peers you connect to decide to not give you pieces.it will greately increase the performance for everyone..No it won't. It'll just slow everyone down with the added overhead generated by the constant disconnects/reconnects.tell what is the average BT user losing from that feature?A sane connect/disconnect cycle.obviously he gets better peers == better speed == less download time == more pieces finished faster == more pieces to upload to the othereverybody is happy, are they?No, you're generating far more connection attempts within the swarm than is necessary. The Disconnect Inactive Peers is only in µTorrent. No other client automatically disconnects peers after a certain amount of time. BitComet already abuses the protocol by doing repeated disconnect/reconnects in an attempt to exploit the optimistic unchoke. Don't put µTorrent in the same class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Levac Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 At what frequency does uTorrent check for inactive peers to disconnect? It must check more frequently than the timout it checks for.ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 When the longest inactive peer is inactive for ("interval" + 60s), all peers that have been inactive for longer than "interval" get dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Levac Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 So this means that it is possible to fill up all connections with inactive peers for 6 minutes.ML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.