BlackLion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 who would have ever thought µT could act like Azureus????I will be going back to the default setting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 But unlike Azureus, all that memory is going to a big old read cache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 'tis true, just so strange to see that next to the µT name is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Oh, when I said I will set it to -1, I meant the write cache. My read cache is still on 0, and I don't think I'll change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLion Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 LOL I knew that splinty, I just had to see what was going on with it At least we know it works and it aint buggy (on the surface anyway) Trust me I wont be using that feature, if I wanted to have my RAM sucked up there are MANY other programs that want that mission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 setting the read cache to 5 mbs greatly reduces the disk activity.. it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAbReAkA Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 try using 5 mb read cache and 5 mb write cache and post the results so we could know statistically how much is the improvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splintax Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Yes, you should stick a microphone next to your HDD and compare sound levels for us. Make sure you make it into a nice pretty graph too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rseiler Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 try using 5 mb read cache and 5 mb write cache and post the results so we could know statistically how much is the improvement Speaking of statistics, are there plans for a nice set of read/write cache statistics a la BitComet and AZ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoko3k Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 THANK you so much.It definitely works as expected, less noisy, less HD activity.Again, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 No problems with high noices from my harddrive, quiert like Bitcomet. Has changeddiskio.read_cache_size to 80000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagrafo Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 I just found out that if you don't set the performance options to 'Large System Cache' rather than 'Applications', Windows XP caching of files is minuscule 8 MB, according to official documentation:http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/library/efa621bd-a031-4461-9e72-59197a7507b61033.mspx?mfr=trueI used P2P in the past and damaged a hard drive for excessive use due to P2P.Now that I am using XP x64 with 5 Gigs of RAM, I find it very convenient to throw gigabytes at uTorrent, the system is most definitively quieter, it really works.The options to enable and force cache of reading and writing of files is very useful. If you suddenly need your memory back, just change the option and that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 The cache is much bigger in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.