Jump to content

µTorrent 3.1 stable (build 26671)

Firon

By Firon
in Announcements

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

masca90020
masca90020

The problem is in tbdev, because tbdev does not accept negative values inside a torrent file. File-media sometimes contain negative values, like here: So, the trackers should fix this. Post on thei

tgwaste Newbie

tgwaste

Posted
Posted

some interesting info posted by 'demonzon' regarding the RSS issue. uTorrent staff can this

be addresses and fixed?

--------------------

For some reason utorrent sends Content-Length: 0 in its GET request. lighttpd does not accept this.

For example, TPBs High Def TV Shows requests are requested (in utorrent) as this:

GET /208 HTTP/1.1

Host: rss.thepiratebay.org

User-Agent: BTWebClient/3100(26595)

Accept-Encoding: gzip

Connection: Close

Content-Length: 0

The "Content-Length: 0" is not valid in a HTTP GET request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamK Advanced Member

AdamK

Posted
Posted
some interesting info posted by 'demonzon' regarding the RSS issue. uTorrent staff can this

be addresses and fixed?

--------------------

For some reason utorrent sends Content-Length: 0 in its GET request. lighttpd does not accept this.

For example, TPBs High Def TV Shows requests are requested (in utorrent) as this:

GET /208 HTTP/1.1

Host: rss.thepiratebay.org

User-Agent: BTWebClient/3100(26595)

Accept-Encoding: gzip

Connection: Close

Content-Length: 0

The "Content-Length: 0" is not valid in a HTTP GET request.

Thanks for the info. I'll attempt to reproduce this bug, and update you tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rafi Advanced Member

rafi

Posted
Posted
some interesting info posted by 'demonzon' regarding the RSS issue. uTorrent staff can this

be addresses and fixed?

--------------------

For some reason utorrent sends Content-Length: 0 in its GET request. lighttpd does not accept this.

For example' date=' TPBs High Def TV Shows requests are requested (in utorrent) as this:

GET /208 HTTP/1.1

Host: rss.thepiratebay.org

User-Agent: BTWebClient/3100(26595)

Accept-Encoding: gzip

Connection: Close

Content-Length: 0

The "Content-Length: 0" is not valid in a HTTP GET request.[/quote']

Thanks for the info. I'll attempt to reproduce this bug, and update you tomorrow.

I wonder if this is the reason for this RSS issue here as well: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=624582#p624582

rafi

Win2k3 R2 Std x86 / WD20EARS. Yes, I restarted - not just uT, server too. The issue is here.

maybe uT on Win2k3 has specific issues :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zarggg Advanced Member

Zarggg

Posted
Posted

I haven't been really following development lately, so I was wondering if the piece checking (when using "Force Re-check") had any major changes.

I have a couple large torrents (>5GB, one is nearly a terabyte) that I only have partially downloaded (for bandwidth and disk storage reasons), and whenever I try to do a recheck on them, they cause uTorrent to become non-responsive and I sometimes have to kill the process. Does anyone know what's going on here?

Edit: I should add that the non-responsiveness does not occur in 3.0.

OS is Windows 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MC1984 Newbie

MC1984

Posted
Posted

9ehmL.png

No idea whats going on here, UI exploded. Even my damn taskbar. Picture of my full desktop, not counting the black boxes.

Torrent with a hundred or so vids in it, clicked stream and this. Seems like the pick a video dialogue box is bugged, reproducible but doesnt happen every time. Windows xp, ut build 26595

Firon harangued me into making this account to post this :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamK Advanced Member

AdamK

Posted
Posted
Then I'd like to ask developers - isn't it possible to rollback changes in working with cache? Sounds silly, yeah... But I believe such issues should have high priority in to-be-fixed list.

Hi Raistlin,

Yes, it is definitely possible - in fact, we already rolled back some changes that caused the hashfail crashes in 26591 & 26593. We just want to understand any issues before we roll back code, and unfortunately, the disk cache subsystem is one of the harder areas to test. Not even our best testers saw the issue before it appeared in the wild.

We're going to work with you, osmosis & rafi to track the remaining issues down.

Thanks,

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamK Advanced Member

AdamK

Posted
Posted
I have verified this bug. I'm fixing it now - it will be in the next changelog.

Was it really Win2K3 related ? Or something potentially common to other platforms ?

I'm sorry' date=' Rafi; I was referring to [url']http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=625094#p625094

the "Content-Length" / RSS bug - that is the bug that is fixed.

We're not ready to tackle the (remaining) disk cache / disk overloaded issues yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyep Advanced Member

dyep

Posted
Posted
What is the changelog for build 26606?

what r u talking about?

If you go to http://www.utorrent.com/downloads you will see that it shows December 14, 2011. Earlier today, they had build 26606 on the download page and they didn't post a changelog. And instead of them posting one they just reverted the build number back to 26595. Is it too much to ask for a changelog as soon as a new build number is up? I remember people complaining about this same exact thing months ago. Admin and staff, please get on top of things and post a changelog as soon as a new build is up for download so we don't have to ask everytime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamK Advanced Member

AdamK

Posted
Posted
What is the changelog for build 26606?

what r u talking about?

If you go to http://www.utorrent.com/downloads you will see that it shows December 14' date=' 2011. Earlier today, they had build 26606 on the download page and they didn't post a changelog. And instead of them posting one they just reverted the build number back to 26595. Is it too much to ask for a changelog as soon as a new build number is up? I remember people complaining about this same exact thing months ago. Admin and staff, please get on top of things and post a changelog as soon as a new build is up for download so we don't have to ask everytime.[/quote']

I think you may have seen a misplaced release for another product.

There was no 26606 for utorrent. We apologize for the inconvenience .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyep Advanced Member

dyep

Posted
Posted

what r u talking about?

If you go to http://www.utorrent.com/downloads you will see that it shows December 14' date=' 2011. Earlier today, they had build 26606 on the download page and they didn't post a changelog. And instead of them posting one they just reverted the build number back to 26595. Is it too much to ask for a changelog as soon as a new build number is up? I remember people complaining about this same exact thing months ago. Admin and staff, please get on top of things and post a changelog as soon as a new build is up for download so we don't have to ask everytime.[/quote']

I think you may have seen a misplaced release for another product.

There was no 26606 for utorrent. We apologize for the inconvenience .

Oh ok, was just wondering because it was up in the morning then gone when I got back to check. Thanks for clearing that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
masca90020 Advanced Member

masca90020

Posted
Posted

I have a dilemma. If I check the "Disable Windows caching of disk writes", my download speed does not go over 1 mb/s (I have 100 mbps). If I let it unchecked, then I have mini-hangs. What's the middle ground here ?

Also, the RSS feature is still broken. Maybe you can rollback to uT 2.2.1 RSS code. That worked fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...