copyCat Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Maximum upload and downlowd limit can be explicity set. Being anti-social, the lowest download limit (3 KB) turns out to give me the highest download rate. When increasing upload limit from 3 to 10 KB I am 'punished' with a reduced download rate. There should be a user selectable option to have the upload limit auto-dynamically adapted/increased up to the point when it negatively impacts the download rate over a certain amount of time. This would spare me the need to manually figure out the best combination again and again. At times when the download rate starts dropping anyway (less sources, many downloads completed etc.) the upload limit should automatically increase since it won't do any harm then to an already low download rate. Respectively, when a download picks up again to the point where a decreased upload limit would even further increase the current download speed, the upload limit should automatically reduce itself. In short, a kind of self-adjusting upload limit optimizer from whom all would benefit with increased download rates. Thanks to the bitComet developers for their great job :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawin45 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I think the torrent is running quite hard cas of the seeders and secondly you might be a firrewall problem, what version of bitcomet are you ussing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copyCat Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 I think the torrent is running quite hard cas of the seeders and secondly you might be a firrewall problem, what version of bitcomet are you ussing? I've noticed this accross all versions and I moved back now from 0.79 to 0.70. I have my WinXP firewall disabled and I'm using D-Link DI-604 router/firewall which is doing a great job when it comes to torrents. I have no issue with my v0.70 download rates, it allows me to use my bandwith up to the limit (1.5 MB given by my ISP fully used) unless I start increasing the 'maximum upload limit' beyond 5 KB/sec (out of 18 KB/s given by my ISP). In v.079 there is even a notice in the preferences dialog not to increase uplaod speed too much. Here is an example why upload bandwidth is wasted: I start a download of 10 files using for download 'No limit' and maximum upload rate I have set to '5 KB/s'. After a few files completed downloading, the actual rate may naturally drop to half of what my ISP allows me on bandwidth, i.e. I could increase now the upload limit to let's say 10 KB/s without negatively impacting an already lower download rate. However, I won't get up in the middle of the night to do that. Instead of the currently static upload limit that can be set I am suggesting a dynamic limit, one that automatically grows to 10 KB/s (or whatever is set) when the download speed falls below a certain threshold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kluelos Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 At least part of your problem is that ten is far too many tasks to try to process at once -- you're starving all of them for bandwidth. Try limiting yourself to one seeding task and one, perhaps two, leeching tasks. You can use the active tasks limits to do this, so you have several tasks queued. When one finishes, the next one in the queue will start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joester Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Just to possibly expand on this... What about the option to uncap the upload limit many of us DSL users must use to achieve reasonable download limits after downloading is complete? Download task finishes, upload limit is removed (No Limit) and uploading is at maximum speed. Like CopyCat, I've tweaked as much as I can, and am using maximum available bandwidth to download. I unfortunately need to restrict the upload to do that. If there were an option to remove upload restrictions on download task completion, I would use it. I bet others would too. It would sure make it easier to get reasonable share ratios... Again, like CopyCat, I'm not getting up at 2:00am to uncap the upload. Couldn't the software do it? Simply overriding the upload restriction when conditions are met might make for easier programming than establishing a dynamic setting. Heck, you could use the arrows as the switch. If any tasks equal Green arrow (downloading), restriction in place. All tasks equal orange arrow, (uploading) restriction off. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copyCat Posted December 17, 2006 Author Share Posted December 17, 2006 At least part of your problem is that ten is far too many tasks to try to process at once -- you're starving all of them for bandwidth. Try limiting yourself to one seeding task and one, perhaps two, leeching tasks. You can use the active tasks limits to do this, so you have several tasks queued. When one finishes, the next one in the queue will start. Yes, I am running many downloads in parallel using 10-20 tasks, it's simply allows to download higher volumes than 2-3 at the time. With 2-3 task the download typically doesn't go above 300 Kb/s and remaining bandwidth is unused. In contrast, 10-20 task allow me to fully use my bandwidth. 20 files in parallel that need 2 days to complete is still better than 10 times a pair of files with each pair just 1 day. Yes, if I urgently need a file I have other downloads suspended but if I want to downlaod as much as possible then I don't know a better way than running 10-20 tasks is parallel (and anything more is queued). In any casel, much of my upload bandwidth remains unused due to fixed prefernces settings in bitComet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copyCat Posted December 18, 2006 Author Share Posted December 18, 2006 :lol: Just to possibly expand on this... What about the option to uncap the upload limit many of us DSL users must use to achieve reasonable download limits after downloading is complete? Download task finishes, upload limit is removed (No Limit) and uploading is at maximum speed. Like CopyCat, I've tweaked as much as I can, and am using maximum available bandwidth to download. I unfortunately need to restrict the upload to do that. .... Simply overriding the upload restriction when conditions are met might make for easier programming than establishing a dynamic setting. Heck, you could use the arrows as the switch. If any tasks equal Green arrow (downloading), restriction in place. All tasks equal orange arrow, (uploading) restriction off. No? I can't agree more, this is a win-win option. Downlaoders automatically release upload bandwidth when no longer required which in turn provides other downloades with better speed (including yourself!). I understand that a dynamic adjustment is difficult to achieve (i.e. need to figure out if the download speed lowered due to lesser sources bandwidth availibility or due to impact of increased uplaod rate at downloader's end?) but using the number of remaining tasks as a threshold seems to be trivial. It doesn't cost me anything to offer increased upload bandwidth at times I don't need it and that goes for many torrent users. Either implement it or I'll register a patent and you'll all pay for it in the end :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copyCat Posted December 18, 2006 Author Share Posted December 18, 2006 The scheduler I've found in v0.79 adresses the upload control issue to some extent; I can sligtly inrease my maximum upload limit at night times when I don't share my connection. However, in no way does it take into account that I would be willing to fully open my upload bandwidth after my downloads completd - the opposite is the case, I can have bitComet configured to automatically shutdown when download tasks completed. There is a clear lack of user control to offer more upload bandwidth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVRSS Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 To BC shame, some other BT clients already have this feature: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kluelos Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I suspect we're on different pages here, because I was speaking of upstream bandwidth, not downstream. It's the bottleneck here. You run out of upstream long before you run out of down. In light of that, then, when I talked about starving tasks for bandwidth, I was referring to what you're uploading to the swarm. As that falls, you're perceived as a less-desirable trader, so you get fewer pieces offered by fewer peers. Your download speed drops. If you're looking just at that, you figure there's headroom for another task, but adding it makes the upstream situation even worse. Of course, I'm not monitoring your system, so I can only speak theoretically here. This is entirely orthogonal to your suggestion, which I agree is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now