Jump to content

Labels and client performance.


Recommended Posts



I was wondering if anybody else have noticed a connection between number of lables and client performance?


my computer i used for DLs was running WinXP and µTorrent version 3.1.3 (everything after that gave me the 100% disk bug thingy), and everything was well and dandy... i had about 1500-2500 torrents running at anyone time, all with 3-4 lables each (Drive, tracker, type and sometime some temp label).


now then i installed Win7 on the computer and tried various versions of the client and copied in the information from my old client to import all the torrents, there lables and there file locations etc. and i still get the 100% disk bug on all newer version so they are totaly useless... now with 3.1.3 i dont get that (to often), but i had to reduce my number of torrents down to like 1000. but as the list starts to grow the clients starts to slow... now this is only the client, everything else on the computer works as normal (its not a slow old computer). but i notice as i start to add lables with multiple torrents in them the client slows more, and if i reduce the number of lables (below the bare minimum i need/want i can add more then 1000-1200 torrents)....


now ive tried to go down to the version 2.2.1 that "everyone" recomends, but when i copy the files into its appdata folder it "finds" all the torrents but it only reads one lable per torrent so i lose loads of lables. true it runs stable and fast with like 2000+ torrents but im wondering if thats only because it reads one lable per torrent, and if i start to add the lables i need (if its even possible... maybe 2.2.1 only supports one lable per torrent) it will slow down again...


does anyone have any insight into this issue? is the hole lable system made in a way where it just breaks the client if u have loads of torrents with several lables?

my "resume.dat" is currently little over 6 mb in size.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.1.3 and 2.2.1 are NOT supported anymore.


This doesnt realy answer my question since it seems the problems exists in newer clients.


also, since above mentioned client versions isnt supported anymore, can u direct me to a working version that these problems dont exist? AND that is isnt blocked by most private trackers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...