torrentcrazy Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Are there any recommended settings for the read cache in the new beta release? If I leave it at 0, does it default to using Windows system cache or do something else? Anybody have experience working with this new feature, it is new, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 recommendation is to leave it at 0 unless you have 2GB or more of system RAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentcrazy Posted January 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yeah right, I wish I had 2GB of memory. 0 it is for me then, 256MB is a long ways from 2GB.Is it still using the system cache for a read cache then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 And for the love of God and you own body, don't set it at -1, it'll gobble up RAM almost as fast as Azureus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentcrazy Posted January 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Got you. I'm leaving it alone.Another question about advanced setting in new beta, what does bt.send_have_to_seed do? I'm just curious about these settings, the beta utorrent is working just fine for me.Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hmm. So why is it that read cache is set to 0 by default but write cache is set to -1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark8037 Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 I don't understand this obsession with memory. Do you guys know that without a decent read/write cash you are essentailly killing your hard drive? I am a bitcomet user that is reluctantly moving to utorrent becuase bitcomet is being banned everywhere. The primary reason I use bitcomet is for the excellent read/write cash that reduces the load on my hard drive by about 80-90%. I am looking forward to testing the read cache in utorrent. I'd rather use my RAM then trash my hard drive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Unless you're seeding huge files through an extremely fat pipe, the abuse a desktop computer can give a hdd is almost not worth speaking of; defraging does more damage than seeding torrents unless you're pushing out a megabit or more per second. The impact on performance of having your drive heads seeking all over the place while you're trying to do something else is entirely another story though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 And for the love of god, it's called cache, every person with a retarded argument about the cache spells it cash. Unless you have 2GB or more of system RAM, it's NOT recommended to use the read cache in µTorrent. Why? Unlike BitComet, it doesn't bypass the Windows system cache (it may in the future). The system cache can grow up to 960MB. If you wanna take advantage of that, turn off diskio.flush_files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 splintax: 0 disables the setting entirely, -1 is autopilot (it automagically regulates the setting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 I guess I'll be sticking with -1 then. As for "cache", I've seen "cash", "cashe", "cach" and "catch" before. It seems it's a really hard word to spell or something. (What surprises me is how someone can misspell it when it's been spelt correctly in the last 5 posts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 torrentcrazy: unless Firon has put it in the FAQ, go to this thread for info regarding bt.send_have_to_seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 splintax: be prepared to add in another 1GB stick of RAM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentcrazy Posted January 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 torrentcrazy: unless Firon has put it in the FAQ, go to this thread for info regarding bt.send_have_to_seedDo you mean the thread I'm currently writing in now, "Read Cache in the new beta"? Or did you forget to post a link to another thread? I was a little confused by that ICleolion, maybe cuz I'm kinda slow daahhh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 torrentcrazy: my badhttp://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=4847 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 i tried -1 process listutorrent.exe RAM - 2-3mb VM size - 700 mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torrentcrazy Posted January 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 i tried -1 process listutorrent.exe RAM - 2-3mb VM size - 700 mb Damn, I've got my Page File capped at 380 MB or something like that. Maybe that setting should be used for testing purposes only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 That's why I told you people, DON'T set it -1, leave it off (0), unless you're struggling with your hard disk or can't stand its "noise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 I think -1 makes it max out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Have many people actually provided feedback saying this feature is reducing harddrive "noise"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 And did it help reducing the noise?Edit: stupid me, I didn't read properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 1c3d0g: I think thats wat Firon meant by saying 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 1c3d0g yeah i know that u said DON'Tbut that's the human nature if somebody says don't do it u probably should (cigarettes and drugs are not included - fuck that shit )i don't know if it does reduce the noise.. probably it doesn't.. using so much page file memory makes me think that the disk activity is really high.. my PF is capped to 768mb so maybe it could take even more if it wasn't capped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.