DreadWingKnight Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 It's not specific programs. It's specific network locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salat sniper Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 A network location which doesn't support TCP? From this location you can't even use a browser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadWingKnight Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 You really don't understand the train of thought if you're locked into that mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flitox Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 or i could set it to 32 for 3.3.2..... what is it used for anyway??? what are the advantage of that # (128)?i'm asking again since i got no reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciaobaby Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 what is it used for anyway???Caching (temporarily storing) of downloaded blocks, before they are commited to disk (Flushing) and/or storing blocks being requested/uploaded to reduce disk readswhat are the advantage of that # (128)?Four times as much temporary storage BUT 'more' is not always 'better' (or necessary) where the laws of diminishing returns apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archlinux Posted January 1, 2014 Report Share Posted January 1, 2014 There is a good reason why people prefer older versions.They are incapable of using good settings.You never told me these, bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciaobaby Posted January 1, 2014 Report Share Posted January 1, 2014 You never told me these,Try READING the threads that TELL you what they are then!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santanderfilm Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Using v2.0.4ProsLight on resourcesMinimal interface but with enough featuresConsClosed sourceBundled with adwareA bug that causes crash under specific circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 I use 2.2.1As mentioned earlier.StableNo disk I/O and caching issuesNo adsNo social featuresNo streaming featuresNo multimedia featuresNo anti-virus integrationClean and fast UI.Faster: with 2.2.1 i can get speeds in the 300 mbit+ area with no problems. 3.x will rarely go 100 mbit+Cons: Doesn't support 1.8 gb+ cache, why do i need that? Because i have 400 mbit+ and the harddrives overload as soon the cache is full. Having 4gb cache would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Because i have 400 mbit+ and the harddrives overload as soon the cache is full. Having 4gb cache would be nice.Use RAMDrive (==large "cache"). No cache will help you if the sum of your HD speed + uT IO processing logic/power is low. uT just have issues with handling multi-file torrents IO. Try a torrent with single file and you'll see that all is well. 3.4 might (eventually) help with that... Who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archlinux Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 You never told me these' date='[/quote']Try READING the threads that TELL you what they are then!!I never read ANYTHING that could contradict what I SAY!!YOU are ANGRY!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike20021969 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 YOU are ANGRY!!Angry or not, ciaobaby appears to no longer post here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Because i have 400 mbit+ and the harddrives overload as soon the cache is full. Having 4gb cache would be nice.Use RAMDrive (==large "cache"). No cache will help you if the sum of your HD speed + uT IO processing logic/power is low. uT just have issues with handling multi-file torrents IO. Try a torrent with single file and you'll see that all is well. 3.4 might (eventually) help with that... Who knows...Not entirely sure how a RAMDrive would work or what ==large "cache" does. I know of RamDisk, but i don't see how that would help.And why wouldn't a larger cache help?. When the cache is full at 1.8gb the disk overloads and download slows to a crawl until it's done writing the entire cache to disk.If the cache was 4/5 gb this wouldn't happen with the majority of files being less than 10gb, excluding packs, games etc.Sure it would still happen in situations where you're downloading much larger files, but it would still be a big help.Most of my trackers only serve scene releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 RAMDrive will solve the cache >2G "problem", plus it is as fast as a RAM/cache, so you can use the default 128M cache and be happy...If you didn't understand, the root cause is that your setup+utorrent+HD are resulting in slow IO in reference to your faster connection DL speed. As it is now, you are right, uT 3.x will not process IO (for multi-files torrents) to HD at above ~100Mbps rate. So, 300mpb needs the dev team to improve handling of the IO to disk. I can only hope this will be sooner then later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 So, if i understand correctly, RAMDrive is the same as a RAMdisk, and you're suggesting that i make a small portion of my ram into a drive, like g: drive. And used that as cache even tho it's the same hardware that handles both, and that should solve my problem?Just for clarification, i have 8gb ram, and 3x sata3 7200 rpm drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 RAMDrive=RAMdisk. Sadly yeah, as a temporary solution to "speedup" the inefficiency of uT using a real (slower) hard drive for multi-files torrents.If you see ~12MB/sec effective write-speed (with small cache) this is the max you can get with optimal settings with 3.4.x . Not to forget that you will probably need to copy it sometime from the RAMDisk to a real disk... This can take time too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 RAMDrive=RAMdisk. Sadly yeah, as a temporary solution to "speedup" the inefficiency of uT using a real (slower) hard drive for multi-files torrents.If you see ~12MB/sec effective write-speed (with small cache) this is the max you can get with optimal settings with 3.4.x . Not to forget that you will probably need to copy it sometime from the RAMDisk to a real disk... This can take time too...That could be a problem, creating a 4gb ramdisk would leave only 4gb ram for the rest of the system, and i would have to use that drive as a download directory, which means i'd have to empty it manually every few min if downloading larger files.I think ut 2.2.1 will do about 15 mb/s write speed.Atm i've limited ut to 22mb/s, with 1.8gb cache, that seems to work fine even for larger files. It's sad that i'm only using about 50% of the capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soumya Sinha Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Was using 3.3.2 version, was experience frequent crashes. Rolled back to 3.0 version. No crash for 3 weeks now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 You are lucky to have 400mpbs connection... I guess it comes with it's own "problems" like this one... I didn't remember 2.2.1 actually had similar performance. I thought it was faster, more like 25MB/sec. Probably my bad memory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Yes, i thought it would be faster too, and i don't know why it can't write faster considering the write is from ram to hdd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Because it is random writes (not sequential) and multi-files torrents are not aligned per disk blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 In which size?I guess i could benchmark it, ie. my d: have 31mb/s random 512k writes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafi Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 16kB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusk Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 16kBWell, i've never been a raid person, but maybe raid0 would be something to consider.I have 2 seagate 750gb drives for games, movies, tv etc. That's where the majority of my torrents go.Or is it possible to set up a temp dir, as my c: is an ssd and i wouldn't mind if utorrent used 4gb as cache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absfabme2TDfor Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Let me know which one, and everything you like/liked about it.Hi I've got version 3.3 and have not had any problems until recently , the files seeding are in red and seem to be inactive. Is this normal or has a problem occured. Sorry if incorrect place to post but i'm not good with technical stuff. Thanks in advance for any help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.