MaxyDawg Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Encountered and can reproduce bug in post #58, and I've noticed that the same bug has occurred in many of the past betas. Is it just an WIP-build kind of issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNsuRRecTiON Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Quote:"Because the feature-rich dht you're aiming for is more along the lines of a traditional p2p network than that of a bittorrent client."Ok, thanks, but is that really bad?Quote:"Vuze would be essentially a dead BitTorrent client *IF* the BitTorrent portions of Vuze are no longer being bugfixed and new BT features are not being added. It would be a dead client if the company associated with it fails/shuts down. (Though some 3rd party could resurrect the source code and update it.)"LoL, the same goes to uTorrent, but even more, because uTorrent isn't open source..regards,iNsuRRecTiON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ok, thanks, but is that really bad?Bittorrent isn't supposed to be a kazaa clone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUdvm2b Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Something I just noticed on a torrent was I wasn't downloading at more than 75 kB/sec from any of several peers (it was the max speed I could download from any peer I was connected to). I haven't downloaded anything else yet, so I can't confirm if it's reproducible, but I wanted to mention it in case anyone else saw it.EDIT: Downloading another torrent today and I'm getting speeds over 75 kB/s from peers. I think everything is the same between when I took that screen cap yesterday and today, so it must have been a fluke that they all were going the same speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seed.helper Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 why im i speeding allmost my upload in 100% complete peers lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 That is because you have so little upload relative to max download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatarl Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Eh, he probably means that he's somehow seeding to the seeders, which shouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Working as designed. The communication traffic necessary to maintain the connections grows in direct proportion to the download or upload speed. Previously, it was hidden because it's a natural part of TCP connections. Now, with net.calc_overhead set to true by default...uTorrent tries to estimate the overheads. The figures aren't exact, they might even be off by +/-50% for all I know, but they do represent the significant reply traffic generated by downloading quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niktarace Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Switeck, I got a question for you.Is the overhead relative to UL/DL included or not in the max UL or DL of the connexion fixed by the ISP?Imagine this (very) simplified example:A seeder has a connexion with a max DL fixed to 100 kB/s (by the ISP) and is seeding a complete torrent to 10 peers.Each peer displays an overhead of 10kB/s, so the global overhead is 100 kB/s for the DL part.If this seeder starts a new torrent to download, has he already reached its max DL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switeck Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 ISPs count overheads against max bandwidth limits. Some are overprovisioned -- they say you get a 1.5 megabit/sec download line, but actually allocate 1.6-2 megabit/sec so even after overheads you're likely to get 1.5 megabit/sec usable download bandwidth.These estimated overheads can and have caused limit overruns. People would set upload speed limit really low and just by downloading quickly the upload max limit was exceeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous1 Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 upgrading from uT 1.8.5 to 2.1, causing hangs and 50% CPU usage on C2D (I wait about 2h, because I was thinking that new uT2.1 only rehashing files, but I was wrong ;p)probably in some way similar to this bug on 2.0 branchhttp://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=434703#p434703http://www.mediafire.com/file/dnunhtyn4ch/17085-utorrent.5fcc.dmphttp://www.mediafire.com/file/fyqmzyyjzwt/drwtsn32.log Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v8commodore Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 suddenly my scheduler has stopped working using win 7 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey55 Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 uTorrent 2.1 alpha 17085. When I start the program, and torrents' download automatically starts, the list of downloads at the right automatically clears (all downloads disappears from the screen). I need to select the category (all, active, ... etc) at the left, then downloads appears again.Early versions doesn't have that bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejziponken Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 What is the difference between 2.0 and 2.1? Why dont you guys put all your time and energy in one release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schnurlos Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 @Ejziponken: start reading here http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=432358#p432358This matter has been discussed already ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous1 Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 @ Ejziponken1.8.5 = stable branch2.0 = test branch2.1 = nightly minefield release trunk very similar to Fx development ;p (3.5.5 , 3.6 , 3.7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 That's pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feyer Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Virtual_ManPL, but 2.1 not updating 1\7\365 days to new build, as ff 3.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous1 Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 its updating ;ponly uT isnt Open Source like Fx, thats why we cant see all changes in real time xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
signe Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Crashity-crash-crash every since updating from the last build (Friday? Saturday?).Many dumps auto-submitted... probably all pointing to the same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodwilln1 Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Im currently having problem with manual cache setting (I Had it since the 2.0 versions). Whenever I tick the option to set the size of the cache and click apply (no matter what size I use) uTorrent shows 100% disk overload. Immediately. All the traffic stops or slows down to nearly nothing. All the other cache options seem not to have any negative effect but this one has a huge one. I'd like to have that option back for high speed uploading because I usually upload multiple torrent and my disk is too slow to catch it all.If it matters Im using Windows 7 x64 Enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyrobs Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 goodwilln1: Where does it say 100% disk overload? Is that a new 2.1 feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydrashok Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 I wanted to throw this out to see if it's just me or not. I've got my transfer cap set, but the total seems to be inaccurate. I'm running v2.1b17085 (updated from v1.8.4).For example, Tuesday morning I checked my transfer cap settings to see if they were still working correctly, and it said I had only had ~600MB of total traffic towards the cap, even though I could see in my torrent list (and in the lower right corner) that the total (u/l + d/l) Monday night is around 3GB. Now I check again today, having done another 8GB of total traffic last night, and my transfer total is only 2.2GB (1.1GB each way). Both transfer totals cited are using the "last 31 days" selection. Even my statistics (Help > Show Stats) says I've done 5GB of traffic today alone.Is anyone else running into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted November 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Already been mentioned a bunch of times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.