not impressive

[Guest]

well, I must admit I was attracted by the memory usage/simple interface/etc etc...

but I was wondering how utorrent managed when downloading.

So I picked up some reasonnably popular torrents (ie all between 15-30 seeders / 50-100 leechers) from different trackers : one private where I always have incredible performances (can't tell because I'll have problems, but not far from my isp) + demonoid + bt.ydy (chinese, somewhat difficult to connect for us europeans)

I run these torrents with bitcomet 30 minutes then stopped and re-run with utorrent. (I know 30 minutes doesn't always allow to reach full speed but that should be enough to obtain some decent results)

bt.ydy : 35k with bicomet - 25k with utorrent (can't draw to conclusions with this one)

demonoid.com : 80k with bitcomet - 30k with utorrent (hem)

private english tracker : 180k with bitcomet - 16k with utorrent (!!!)

When I look at peers, some I can connect with bitcomet in seconds need (at least...but sometimes never connect) 10-15 minutes with utorrent

I don't know how choking peers is implemented but I won't switch my client until there's some massive improvment in dl speed, whatever the simplicity/memory usage

[Guest]

don't compair speeds over torrents. it has SO many factors that you can't realy check there speed

[Guest]

of course I can compare : I use same upload speed/same torrents/ I can see same peers list... and I obtain similar results with bittornado or bitcomet

One must be insane to swith from "previous" client to utorrent without checking if it offers at least similar performances...

[vurlix]

It's supposed to offer equal or superior performance. If this is not the case, it is a bug and will be fixed. At this time there are few known issues about this.

[eva.02]

I can't seem to post replys, testing.

[Guest]

I resumed partial downloads from Azureus to this and the speeds are almost identical between them.

[Guest]

The speeds depend on the popularity of the torrent and the amount of speeds, NOT on the client. Well, for the most part anyway (limiting the upload to reasonable settings with some ADSL with crap uploads for example).

Aside from that the only thing affecting speed that I can imagine is the clients connection to the tracker. The tracker supplies all of the info about the people connected, so the better the connection to the tracker, the more people you will connect to, and the better speeds you will get (in the most optimal case with a popular torrent).

So unless utorrent has some kind of horrible "try connecting to tracker every 30 mins but timeout after 2 secs" or so method, there shouldn't be any differences.

utorrent is supposed to be faster as in eating less resources. It won't make you download an unseeded torrent magically faster.

[segosa]

From my experience with bittorrent in general and other clients I can say that it's incredibly 'random'. I can get crappy speeds on a torrent with thousands of peers and seeders and yet get 100KB/s (my max) on torrents with less than a hundred peers/seeders.

Your client connecting to other peers depends whether the other peer will actually accept the connection, as most clients are left on the default port without port forwarding.

Because of SP2's 10 half-open connections per second limit the torrent client can't connect at an insane rate, so it needs to choose random peers from the list the tracker gives it, and so it's up to luck whether the peers it chooses are ones with the right ports forwarded. If not, it has to wait until the connection times out. It can drastically affect the time it takes from when a torrent first starts to when it goes at a decent speed.

[Guest]

The speeds depend on the popularity of the torrent and the amount of speeds, NOT on the client. Well, for the most part anyway (limiting the upload to reasonable settings with some ADSL with crap uploads for example).

Aside from that the only thing affecting speed that I can imagine is the clients connection to the tracker. The tracker supplies all of the info about the people connected, so the better the connection to the tracker, the more people you will connect to, and the better speeds you will get (in the most optimal case with a popular torrent).

So unless utorrent has some kind of horrible "try connecting to tracker every 30 mins but timeout after 2 secs" or so method, there shouldn't be any differences.

utorrent is supposed to be faster as in eating less resources. It won't make you download an unseeded torrent magically faster.

I'm perfectly aware of all that. And that's because I'm surprised by these big speed differences I posted here. But as the developer suggested elsewhere, it seems to be part of a bug. So let's wait next release

[ColdArmor]

wow maybe you just didn't reconnect to the right peers as you had with bicomet.. seriously, if you don't like it don't use it.

[Guest]

On the popular Naruto torrents, I was able to attain 150+KBps using BitComet, but using uTorrent, I got a maximum of about 70KBps. I really think there is something wrong with it, as the speeds only hover around 50-70KBps, and NEVER had it gone above (in case anyone didn't know, the Naruto torrents are extremely popular, with something like 10,000 seeds much of the time).

[Guest]

seriously, if you don't like it don't use it.

I like these kind of stupid remarks...

anyway, as I already posted, apart from these speed problems -even we're a minority, I'm not the only one to occur these, read other threads- , I love this client (happy now ?)

I'm currently using it right now to seed some stuff on different trackers at the same time and with the bandwith allocation level option (high / normal / low) I can efficiently prioritize chosen torrents without using fixed upload speeds (re-happy now ?)

[Guest]

On the popular Naruto torrents, I was able to attain 150+KBps using BitComet, but using uTorrent, I got a maximum of about 70KBps. I really think there is something wrong with it, as the speeds only hover around 50-70KBps, and NEVER had it gone above (in case anyone didn't know, the Naruto torrents are extremely popular, with something like 10,000 seeds much of the time).

I wonder if it has something to do with the "resolving ip" option. As it takes time to resolve numerous ip, MAYBE (don't flame me if I'm wrong, just a suggestion) performances decrease with massively leeched torrents...

I'll investigate more tomorrow...

[vurlix]

We are getting mixed reports... Some people are getting higher speeds with µTorrent than they ever did with Azureus even. Other people are reporting severe speed issues... We're not quite sure what to make of it just yet.

[Guest]

Hi, I'm the guy who runs Filerush.com, a torrent site for video game videos and demos. I'm always looking for better ways to manage huge amounts of torrents at once. I've gone through azureus and abc, and have been using plain old python with the mainline bittorrent scripts for a good while now. It's amazing to use Bram's code and not have to restart the scripts or the server for months on end.

Anyway, so I gave uTorrent a try. I configured all the preferences for unlimted everything, 100 connections for each torrent and a grand total max of 1000 connections across all torrents. This is on a Windows 2000 server btw. I then added 150 torrents. Everything ran well and I sorted the list by uploading k/second. After about 20 minutes I saw that a bunch were working fine and I let it go.

About an hour or 2 later I went to do some downloading tests with some torrent clients. Even though uTorrent is telling me and the tracker that it's seeding all of these torrents, it's not actually serving them out. On various clients on 3 different ISPs, the uTorrent seed wouldn't send any data out for 6 of the 8 torrent files I tried at random. It shows the seed in the scrape, but never on the peer list as getting data from it. I switched it back to the python mainline Bram Cohen Bittorrent seeder app, and voila; instantly serving all torrents again no matter how many random files I try. So in essence, uTorrent at this point can't be trusted.

[vurlix]

Please contact ludde or myself via email (our username @ utorrent.com) or board message to help find and resolve the problem. There's obviously something wrong going on, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Thanks..

[TheGooseyOne]

i wish my torrents with utorrent started at all

[Spanky]

I'm still getting the error "Failure: Peer not found. Restart the torrent"

Please help

[Guest]

I've been using Utorrent on XPx64 for a day or so, i really like it, but its just quite a bit slower than the 'olde memory eater' & lets face it download speed is why we use bittorrent.........

Lets hope these bugs are fixed in future versions..

Kind regards

Bazz

[YeCkeL]

I've been using Utorrent on XPx64 for a day or so, i really like it, but its just quite a bit slower than the 'olde memory eater' & lets face it download speed is why we use bittorrent.........

Lets hope these bugs are fixed in future versions..

Kind regards

Bazz

I use it to download/upload and share so having a 2 panel window like azureus is nice A client is not about raw speed and memory foot print if that was true then 700k+ people would not use azureus.

[Guest]

I'm having the same problems..torrents that would give me over 100kb/s in Azureus are giving me at most 15kb/s in µTorrent. Love the filesize and RAM usage, but I've unfortunantly been forced to switch back to Az until this is fixed :?.

[Guest]

I too have noticed a huge speed differences. I usually get 300kb/s + on private trackers and upload at about 80kb/s, with µtorrent i have never seen it go over 100kb/s and most of the time its not using all of the upload even though i set the maximum to 80kb/s,

I'm really lovin the small memory usage and almost no cpu usage but at the cost of speed.... I dunno. :? Hope it gets fixed soon.

[Guest]

Well, it must be a specific problem related to certain trackers or certain computers. I have screenshots from yesterday showing multiple torrents averaging 500+ KB/s over several hours.

[XtremeMaC]

We are getting mixed reports... Some people are getting higher speeds with µTorrent than they ever did with Azureus even. Other people are reporting severe speed issues... We're not quite sure what to make of it just yet.

maybe that's bc they're using the router and haven't enabled the ports and don't have upnp enabled or something?

i cannot really compare the speeds bc my adsl is not that fast. but for what i've downloaded it works just fine

[Guest]

I get the error on a certain tracker saying .torrent file is not valid, but it works on other trackers. Is this because it is a UDP tracker?