shadek Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Not sure if that is going to happen. Seeing Azureus are about 40% of the total amount of clients, they'll probably stick with their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think the better explanation for them not wanting to change is because their way is supposedly more efficient, not because they have the largest number of users... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadek Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Yeah, or that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Shroud Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 I see the PEX becoming universal so the only thing I'm still waiting for is the UDP NAT traversal, so I can use µTorrent on my college lan. After that all future options are gravy.Adding AzDHT support would be nice and BitTornado's newest version supposedly has a more secure Super-Seed mode that BitComet can't take advantage of. So that might have some possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckerfan Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Azureus DHT, proxy support, SSL tracker support, and NAT Traversal would be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Well, I hope ludde will not forget the fixes & improvements to the RSS downloader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadek Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 So:1, Azureus DHT2, Proxy support3, SSL tracker support4, NAT transversal5, Web UISeems like most people want this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saribro Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 HELL YES ! on nr4Would be great. on nr1Don't personally care about the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 1) doubt it2) maybe3) doubt it4) likely5) in progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurahashi Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Global upload slots, puuuul-eaze? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisa01 Posted March 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Yeah, global upload slots is more handy than the per file setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Um, the global upload slots that has been in there since the beginning? Or do you mean a "total" number of upload slots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDude Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 How about easy fixes for "annoyances" ? :- ETA that works at least as well as subtracting start time from current time and dividing by percentage completed. (Just copying BitTornado's algorithm would suffice)- Optional columns for all commonly used settings, like Bandwidth Allocation (as requested by some members)*** - Separate Column for ERROR MESSAGES, so we don't have to expand Status all the way to the right side of the page to read them. (Should have been done in version 1.1 )*** - Logging of ERROR MESSAGES to the LOG ( Should have been done in version 1.0 )I really think utorrent is a great program which is much appreciated, but having only one developer leads to weird oversights like the above. There is absolutely no way that "Tab Icons" and "F7" come before the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisa01 Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Um, the global upload slots that has been in there since the beginning? Or do you mean a "total" number of upload slots?I would say global implies total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Don't run too many torrents then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurahashi Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 [quoting the previous post is spam - quote removed]Verrry funny :/Details here: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=6446 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I'm not kidding around, you shouldn't be running so many torrents that you actually need a global upload slot control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurahashi Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 LOL, so many means exactly? Three, five or seven? What is the point of making torrent client allowing simultaneous downloading of many torrents but with network setup based per each download - not global?!What is the difference if I start downloading two torrents using uTorrent or, for example two bittornado's now? From the network setup point of view? N O N EIn fact launching two bittornado instances I have bigger flexibility, because I can assign exact (and different) number of upload slots and upstream per every torrent... but this is not what we need, don't we? All we need from torrent client is to allow us to have one, good, stable configuration using upstream most efficiently, no matter if we are downloading one, three, five or even fifteen torrents currently.This is master feature uTorrent is desperately lacking now and should be implemented as soon as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Running enough torrents to need to have global upload slot limits is running enough torrents that you're most likely screwing yourself over with protocol overhead.Screwing yourself over with protocol overhead means your download speeds are going to suck hardcore.You want this feature that badly, write your own client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linx05 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 3, SSL tracker supportThis is the only thing stopping a mate from using µTorrent. A few private trackers use SSL and thus the reason he uses Azureus still.Too bad Firon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 We actually considered SSL support, but ludde said it'd be complex and require a lot of code. He's not sure if he can implement it without having to use a bunch of huge libraries. That's why I said "doubt it." But that's not a no, it could still happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linx05 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Oh ok. It would be nice if it were implemented. Here's to hoping Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurahashi Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Screwing yourself over with protocol overhead means your download speeds are going to suck hardcore.Oh yeah baby. Like I have nothing better to do instead watching my overhead and tweaking my number of upload slots per torrent everytime I add another torrent to my queue. And everytime any of my torrents finishes downloading/seeding too, ofcourse.You want this feature that badly, write your own client.How about switching to use and advertise one has it since begining? Like, for example, BitComet...I wonder what is so terrible wrong with this - obviously increasing efficiency - feature that uTorrent can't have it, and such often despised and bashed here client has it already. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubitsa Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 kurahashi, if you have your upload slots capped at 8, and you run 10 torrents, that means that doing things your way would make you not upload *at all* on at least 2 of the torrents. That's pure leeching, and it'll not only hurt your speeds on those torrents, but it's just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 You shouldn't need to tweak the number of upload slots at all after you decide on an initial setting is the point. You set don't count slow uploads/downloads and set the max number of active torrents; that's all. That effectively does set a cap on global upload slots. Your problem seems to be that you simply have your max active torrents set too high and want µTorrent to work around you doing things wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.