war59312 Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 "Seed while" stops .001% early it seems.For example if I have it set to 100% then it stops at .999%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silass Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Mine hangs after a few hours of the application being open then when i try to close it brings up the not responding promptUsing windows 7 64bit reinstalled it 4 days ago on a decent I7 system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daifuku Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 I also encountered the same problem experienced by Silass on my Windows 7 64bit system:Whenever I tried to stop a torrent which had been running for a while, uTorrent would hang and fail to respond to any command. This bug is reproducible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 what your % CPU that uTorrent takes ? is the speedgraph visible at that time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tapin13 Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 download and start testing! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 "Seed while" stops .001% early it seems.For example if I have it set to 100% then it stops at .999%.It's because uploading happens in 16kb chunks, so due to a rounding error it stops at .999. I'm fairly certain uT rounds down, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous1 Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 bloatware graph introduced in 2.0.1 or its just me ? µTorrent 2.0.1 beta 18284CPU use - about 21% LOL, W00TµTorrent 2.0 18296CPU use - about 2%PC Specs:C2D E6550 2,33GHz @ 3,5GHzalso 2.0.1 have laggy menus when you select torrents with mouse, with graph in background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 see bug #2 here : http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=457060#p457060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Yer, it's the transparent legend. It's gonna be disabled by default on the next build. For now, just disable gui.transparent_graph_legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 but... but... I want it fixed ... fast, transparent and 0% CPU load... maybe just deleting the last (redundant/yellow) item on the legend might help with that ? ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 No, it won't help. It's because of the way it's implemented (faked transparency with standard GDI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimboni Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 On linux (using WINE), utorrent with gui.tranparent_graph_legend enable the cpu raises to 100% when the graph tab is clicked.Disabling gui.tranparent_graph_legend solves the problem.Please devs keep an eye on WINE , i know linux is not a target OS, but all versions of utorrent had worked flawlessly. And it works far better and faster than native aplications XD !!Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emc Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 SETUP GUIDE BUG1) I checked port which is not currently forwarded2) I got red cross icon and right result - port is not open3) I checked port which is currently forwarded4) I got green check mark icon and right result - port is open5) I checked port which is not currently forwarded6) I got red cross icon but result - port is open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Firon:No, it won't help. It's because of the way it's implemented (faked transparency with standard GDI)another idea: so, maybe without the gray background at all ? like 100% transparent, just write the legend text as a part of the the graph's blue background , and draw the lines over them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muouyiyi Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 so nice a tool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Some issues for your comments: Overhead example: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69416Packets amount/size/distribution: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=69592 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalbhai Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 i Dont want to upload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iycgtptyarvg Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 @lalbhaiThen bittorrent is not for you. I would suggest trying either Usenet or web-sites like Rapidshare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex14san Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 What values of overhead are considered normal? I have 20-30kB on 1mbit connection.2 active torrents, 512 total connections, 128 per torrent (typically it's ~90 active peers),So about 15-25% of traffic is getting wasted on overhead? Seems too much for me, what can I do to minimize it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 @alex: see my post/links @#91 above. I think I have the same result as you . I guess it's something they are working on improving right now (at least I hope so...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 What values of overhead are considered normal? I have 20-30kB on 1mbit connection.2 active torrents, 512 total connections, 128 per torrent (typically it's ~90 active peers),http://s006.radikal.ru/i213/1002/c8/43310321f66d.pngSo about 15-25% of traffic is getting wasted on overhead? Seems too much for me, what can I do to minimize it?More connections = more overhead. Keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war59312 Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Very odd, after all these years this suddenly appears when I just now closed uTorrent:As you can see I'm running Windows Vista. It's 32bit SP2 in fact.Easy enough to fix by downloading and extracting http://support.microsoft.com/kb/180071 .Right clicked msvbvm50.inf and choose install. No more error when closing uTorrent.Very strange this just now popped up.Perhaps it is because of http://support.microsoft.com/KB/976264 .But why does Windows Vista think uTorrent needs Visual Basic 5.0 Run-Time Files in the first place. Is this really the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 @Firon: 2 active torrents @ 128 connections per torrent is more or less what the 'setup guide' recommends for 1M connection. 28K/100K overhead is not what 'we' expect, being much higher than in TCP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash_1 Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 after the resolution initiating outbound UDP traffic, many ISP seen incredible growth in the number of PPS, as Utorrent reduces the size of UDP packet to very small values. Begins to fall HARD, lost packets other traffic. Maybe should prohibit the creation of very small packets, or otherwise bring to mind the transfer of data via UDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted February 26, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 2.0.1 will reduce the overall PPS for you compared to 2.0, since it uses a larger initial packet size (600 bytes instead of 300) and ramps it up more quickly/intelligently. Still, high rates of UDP traffic are something you're gonna have to live with as time goes by, since there's more VoIP and other protocols that use UDP that are growing dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.