Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vuze Upload Speed Limit
1,434 views
Skip to first unread message
Sid Elbow
Feb 10, 2012, 5:21:35 PM2/10/12
to
When I set a global upload speed limit in Vuze, it displays, in square
brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
perhaps higher.
For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
It's worked fine for years - just started doing this in the last few
months. I thought perhaps the SpeedScheduler plugin, which I've used for
a long time was doing something funny but I disabled it and the same
thing is still happening.
All I can guess is that some other Vuze setting (there are so many of
them) that I've fooled with has affected this but if so, I can't figure
out which. I did check (and double check) that Auto Speed is *not* enabled.
Any ideas?
brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
perhaps higher.
For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
It's worked fine for years - just started doing this in the last few
months. I thought perhaps the SpeedScheduler plugin, which I've used for
a long time was doing something funny but I disabled it and the same
thing is still happening.
All I can guess is that some other Vuze setting (there are so many of
them) that I've fooled with has affected this but if so, I can't figure
out which. I did check (and double check) that Auto Speed is *not* enabled.
Any ideas?
Not Disclosed
Feb 18, 2012, 10:48:35 AM2/18/12
to
Sid Elbow
Feb 18, 2012, 1:54:48 PM2/18/12
to
- Doctor, it hurts when I do "this"
- Don't do "this"
- Don't do "this"
Patok
Feb 27, 2012, 4:57:53 PM2/27/12
to
code. When you set the limit manually or through Auto Speed - doesn't
matter which - it never drops below 300. At some point I had downloaded
the source, found where it was, and wanted to contact the developers.
But they had made it very difficult to do so - one had to join the team,
or something, AFAIR. I didn't bother. I think I made a post about it in
some forum or something like that, and it was promptly ignored. That was
some years ago.
But since then I have internet speeds in the range of MB/s, so I
don't bother.
However, I am really surprised by what you write - that it has ever
worked. Are you sure about that? Unless the SpeedSheduler you mention
used to work before, and broke in recent releases? (I've never used it,
I don't know what it is). As I wrote, the comparison to a literal 300
(not even a constant or #define) was in the source code of Azureus itself.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Sid Elbow
Feb 28, 2012, 1:25:56 PM2/28/12
to
On 2/27/2012 4:57 PM, Patok wrote:
> Sid Elbow wrote:
>> When I set a global upload speed limit in Vuze, it displays, in square
>> brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
>> upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
>> perhaps higher.
>>
>> For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
>> chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
>>
>> It's worked fine for years
>
> Sid Elbow wrote:
>> When I set a global upload speed limit in Vuze, it displays, in square
>> brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
>> upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
>> perhaps higher.
>>
>> For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
>> chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
>>
>> It's worked fine for years
>
> Azureus/Vize has a hardcoded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source
> code. When you set the limit manually or through Auto Speed - doesn't
> matter which - it never drops below 300.
300 KB/s ??? ..... it would be nice. My service is limited to 700 Kb/s
> code. When you set the limit manually or through Auto Speed - doesn't
> matter which - it never drops below 300.
upload speed - say 70 KB/s. Because of downloading overhead, using all
of this upload capacity would kill the downloads - see Azureus/Vuze wiki
(http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Auto_Speed) so you can only use about 80% of it.
Say 55 KB/s.
But ... if you use that full 55 KB/s while other machines on the LAN are
using the internet it will kill their access. So you have to use
considerably less at those times. Which is the whole point of Speed
Scheduler - it allows you to set lower upload limits at times when you
want some of the upload (or download) bandwidth for other things. It
does this by setting the Azureus's "max upload speed"
(Tools/options/transfer/max upload speed) on the fly according to a
schedule you set up.
Incidentally, nothing under that Azureus setting indicates there is any
lower limit to the upload speed nor is there anything anywhere in the
Vuze wiki. I don't for one minute believe there is such a lower limit
(there's no logical reason for it for one thing). That it would be 300
KB/s is, in any case, not credible.
> But since then I have internet speeds in the range of MB/s, so I don't
> bother.
fortunate. But 99 % of people don't even come close.
> However, I am really surprised by what you write - that it has ever
> worked. Are you sure about that?
Unless the SpeedSheduler you mention
> used to work before, and broke in recent releases?
(I've never used it,
> I don't know what it is).
Patok
Feb 28, 2012, 3:28:13 PM2/28/12
to
Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 4:57 PM, Patok wrote:
>> Sid Elbow wrote:
>>>
>>> When I set a global upload speed limit in Vuze, it displays, in square
>>> brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
>>> upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
>>> perhaps higher.
>>>
>>> For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
>>> chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
>>>
>>> It's worked fine for years
>>
>> Azureus/Vize has a hardcoded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source
>> code. When you set the limit manually or through Auto Speed - doesn't
>> matter which - it never drops below 300.
>
> 300 KB/s ??? ..... it would be nice. My service is limited to 700 Kb/s
> upload speed - say 70 KB/s. Because of downloading overhead, using all
> of this upload capacity would kill the downloads - see Azureus/Vuze wiki
> (http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Auto_Speed) so you can only use about 80% of it.
> Say 55 KB/s.
[snipped some true stuff]
> On 2/27/2012 4:57 PM, Patok wrote:
>> Sid Elbow wrote:
>>>
>>> When I set a global upload speed limit in Vuze, it displays, in square
>>> brackets, on the bottom line correctly but consistently shows actual
>>> upload speeds that are far greater - it seems to be around 50% more or
>>> perhaps higher.
>>>
>>> For instance, right now I have it set for 60 kB/s max but it's happily
>>> chugging along at 80 - 90 kB/s.
>>>
>>> It's worked fine for years
>>
>> Azureus/Vize has a hardcoded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source
>> code. When you set the limit manually or through Auto Speed - doesn't
>> matter which - it never drops below 300.
>
> 300 KB/s ??? ..... it would be nice. My service is limited to 700 Kb/s
> upload speed - say 70 KB/s. Because of downloading overhead, using all
> of this upload capacity would kill the downloads - see Azureus/Vuze wiki
> (http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Auto_Speed) so you can only use about 80% of it.
> Say 55 KB/s.
> Incidentally, nothing under that Azureus setting indicates there is any
> lower limit to the upload speed nor is there anything anywhere in the
> Vuze wiki. I don't for one minute believe there is such a lower limit
> (there's no logical reason for it for one thing). That it would be 300
> KB/s is, in any case, not credible.
There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
your download speed should be limited to no less than 300. What I now
recall was bugging me at the time was when visiting my brother who had
DSL, the *download* speed being 300 KB/s saturated his line, so I was
not able to use it there. And you're right, it is not mentioned anywhere
in the docs - that's what upset me at the time and I wanted to contact them.
Here are the relevant sections from AzureusCoreImpl.java from the source
for version 4.2.0.8 (the one I downloaded at the time to look for clues):
speed_manager =
SpeedManagerFactory.createSpeedManager(
this,
new SpeedManagerAdapter()
{
private final int UPLOAD_SPEED_ADJUST_MIN_KB_SEC = 10;
private final int DOWNLOAD_SPEED_ADJUST_MIN_KB_SEC = 300;
private boolean setting_limits;
................
public void
setCurrentUploadLimit(
int bytes_per_second )
{
if ( bytes_per_second != getCurrentUploadLimit()){
String key = TransferSpeedValidator.getActiveUploadParameter(
global_manager );
int k_per_second;
if ( bytes_per_second == Integer.MAX_VALUE ){
k_per_second = 0;
}else{
k_per_second = (bytes_per_second+1023)/1024;
}
if ( k_per_second > 0 ){
k_per_second = Math.max( k_per_second,
UPLOAD_SPEED_ADJUST_MIN_KB_SEC );
}
COConfigurationManager.setParameter( key, k_per_second );
}
}
........................
public void
setCurrentDownloadLimit(
int bytes_per_second )
{
if ( bytes_per_second == Integer.MAX_VALUE ){
bytes_per_second = 0;
}
if ( bytes_per_second > 0 ){
bytes_per_second = Math.max( bytes_per_second,
DOWNLOAD_SPEED_ADJUST_MIN_KB_SEC*1024 );
}
TransferSpeedValidator.setGlobalDownloadRateLimitBytesPerSecond(
bytes_per_second );
}
>> But since then I have internet speeds in the range of MB/s, so I don't
>> bother.
>
> If you're talking upload speeds "in the range of MB/s" you are very
> fortunate. But 99 % of people don't even come close.
I guess so. Sorry. 25 Mbit/s up and down home, gigabit at work.
>> But since then I have internet speeds in the range of MB/s, so I don't
>> bother.
>
> If you're talking upload speeds "in the range of MB/s" you are very
> fortunate. But 99 % of people don't even come close.
>> However, I am really surprised by what you write - that it has ever
>> worked. Are you sure about that?
>
> ... er .... yes. I don't have that good an imagination.
> Unless the SpeedSheduler you mention
>> used to work before, and broke in recent releases?
>
> Haven't updated it since I got it. AFAIK there are no later releases.
> (I've never used it,
>> I don't know what it is).
>
> No kidding.
built-in automatic ones that self-install.
What is bugging me in the current version (starting with 4.7) is they
removed the option for opening the Options tab on startup (this is in
the classic Azureus UI, Advanced mode). Before, there was the option of
doing that, and on startup I had the 3 tabs open - Torrents, Statistics,
and Options. Now it is no longer an option to do that, and it starts
with Torrents and Statistics only. I have to open Options manually. Oh,
well.
Sid Elbow
Feb 28, 2012, 6:15:07 PM2/28/12
to
On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
explain some of my comments :-) )
Incidentally, Azureus *can* be set to limit download speeds to (well)
below 300 kb/s (and will reflect that setting).
> Here are the relevant sections from AzureusCoreImpl.java from the source
> for version 4.2.0.8 (the one I downloaded at the time to look for clues):
> I guess so. Sorry. 25 Mbit/s up and down home, gigabit at work.
people. I have actually moved from 5Mb/s-700Kb/s to 16Mb/s-1Mb/s since I
originally posted. Not that speed tests show anything like that up
speed. The best I've seen is 0.68 Mb/s (down checks out at 14.5 Mb/s
pretty consistently which isn't too bad).
> I meant the Azu/Vuze releases. Are you updating it?
all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version TheBox
would approve).
> Indeed. :) Where did you get it? I don't think it is one of the built-in
> automatic ones that self-install.
couldn't see the download link):
http://thesmithfam.org/blog/azureus-speed-scheduler-faq/
(Interesting .... Thunderbird's spell-checker keeps wanting to replace
Mb/s with MB/s :-) )
~misfit~
Feb 28, 2012, 7:05:12 PM2/28/12
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
[snip]
back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox' instructions....
As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me. Sometimes it
goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the only thing I can think
of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or lower it drops your download
speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to test it now as I've got a torrent
that's been a PITA finally coming in nicely.)
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
[snip]
> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
> TheBox would approve).
How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a couple years
> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
> TheBox would approve).
back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox' instructions....
As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me. Sometimes it
goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the only thing I can think
of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or lower it drops your download
speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to test it now as I've got a torrent
that's been a PITA finally coming in nicely.)
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
cozy little classification in the DSM."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
Sid Elbow
Feb 28, 2012, 8:33:01 PM2/28/12
to
On 2/28/2012 7:05 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> [snip]
>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>> TheBox would approve).
>
> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a couple years
> back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox' instructions....
Hi Shaun - long time no 'see'.
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> [snip]
>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>> TheBox would approve).
>
> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a couple years
> back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox' instructions....
Yeah, I did the same a few years back - downgraded because TheBox said
the tracker might refuse if I didn't. When I did it though, they were
insisting on 4.1.0.2.
Since then, I hadn't looked until a couple of weeks ago (partly because
I hadn't bothered; partly because info like that seems hard to dig out
of TB ... I wanted to set up my RSS feed again recently. Trying to get
the info on what cookies and how to send them took me best part of an
hour, but I digress ....)
Latest *recommended* version is 4.2.0.2 which you have. I'd upgrade to
that if I could find a copy. Latest approved version is 4.6.0.5
> As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me. Sometimes it
> goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the only thing I can think
> of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or lower it drops your download
> speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to test it now as I've got a torrent
> that's been a PITA finally coming in nicely.)
who try to minimise their upload bytes. Possibly it comes from the
tracker. In my case though I was running with a default upload speed of
around 50 KB/s which seemed to play nicely with my downloads. I used
SpeedScheduler to drop that to 20 - 30 KB/s at certain times of day when
I and/or the missus (especially the missus) was likely to be using the
internet. It worked quite well and saved a lot of ear-ache.
Then Azureus decided one day that, even though it was set for a 30 KB/s
limit it would let it go to 50 KB/s or so notwithstanding. I think I had
made a (theoretically non-related) configuration change or two around
when that started - can't remember what - and wondered if it was
something I'd done.
Looking on the bright side, I'm better off than Bernie Ecclestone. Not
financially of course but then, I'm not being investigated by the tax man.
MartinS
Feb 29, 2012, 12:37:49 PM2/29/12
to
"~misfit~" <sore_n...@nospamyahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> [snip]
>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>> TheBox would approve).
>
> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a couple
> years back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox'
> instructions....
>
> As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me.
> Sometimes it goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the only
> thing I can think of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or lower it
> drops your download speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to test it
> now as I've got a torrent that's been a PITA finally coming in
> nicely.)
TheBox also prefers nothing later than utorrent 1.8.2.
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> [snip]
>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>> TheBox would approve).
>
> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a couple
> years back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox'
> instructions....
>
> As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me.
> Sometimes it goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the only
> thing I can think of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or lower it
> drops your download speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to test it
> now as I've got a torrent that's been a PITA finally coming in
> nicely.)
--
Martin S.
~misfit~
Mar 3, 2012, 3:22:48 AM3/3/12
to
boost ratios.
~misfit~
Mar 3, 2012, 4:42:50 AM3/3/12
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 7:05 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>>> TheBox would approve).
>>
>> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a
>> couple years back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox'
>> instructions....
>
>
> Hi Shaun - long time no 'see'.
Hey Sid, great to 'see' you. :-)
> On 2/28/2012 7:05 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated
>>> in all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version
>>> TheBox would approve).
>>
>> How recently? I use TheBox and ver. 4.2.0.2. I remember maybe a
>> couple years back I had to downgrade to this version per TheBox'
>> instructions....
>
>
> Hi Shaun - long time no 'see'.
> Yeah, I did the same a few years back - downgraded because TheBox said
> the tracker might refuse if I didn't. When I did it though, they were
> insisting on 4.1.0.2.
>
> Since then, I hadn't looked until a couple of weeks ago (partly
> because I hadn't bothered; partly because info like that seems hard to dig
> out
> of TB ... I wanted to set up my RSS feed again recently. Trying to
> get the info on what cookies and how to send them took me best part
> of an hour, but I digress ....)
>
> Latest *recommended* version is 4.2.0.2 which you have. I'd upgrade to
> that if I could find a copy. Latest approved version is 4.6.0.5
4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
>> As for limiting speed, both up and down, they work fine for me.
>> Sometimes it goes over briefly then is throttled back. About the
>> only thing I can think of is that, if you set upload to 4 kB/s or
>> lower it drops your download speed to (IIRC) 12 kB/s. (Don't want to
>> test it now as I've got a torrent that's been a PITA finally coming
>> in nicely.)
>
> Yes, I've noticed that too. I suspect it's to limit hit-and-run types
> who try to minimise their upload bytes. Possibly it comes from the
> tracker. In my case though I was running with a default upload speed
> of around 50 KB/s which seemed to play nicely with my downloads. I
> used SpeedScheduler to drop that to 20 - 30 KB/s at certain times of
> day when I and/or the missus (especially the missus) was likely to be
> using the internet. It worked quite well and saved a lot of ear-ache.
>
> Then Azureus decided one day that, even though it was set for a 30
> KB/s limit it would let it go to 50 KB/s or so notwithstanding. I
> think I had made a (theoretically non-related) configuration change
> or two around when that started - can't remember what - and wondered
> if it was something I'd done.
>
> Looking on the bright side, I'm better off than Bernie Ecclestone. Not
> financially of course but then, I'm not being investigated by the tax
> man.
nicer guy. ;-)
Only two weeks until the Australian GP. :-)
Sid Elbow
Mar 3, 2012, 1:47:53 PM3/3/12
to
On 3/3/2012 4:42 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Ohh, is Bernie getting the once-over by the leeches? Couldn't happen to a
> nicer guy. ;-)
Quite.
> Ohh, is Bernie getting the once-over by the leeches? Couldn't happen to a
> nicer guy. ;-)
> Only two weeks until the Australian GP. :-)
Patok
Mar 3, 2012, 1:51:03 PM3/3/12
to
Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>
>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>
> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
> explain some of my comments :-) )
Duh. :) I implicitly used KBytes/s; I thought it was clear. Whenever
> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>
>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>
> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
> explain some of my comments :-) )
I meant bits, I explicitly spelled them out.
> Incidentally, Azureus *can* be set to limit download speeds to (well)
> below 300 kb/s (and will reflect that setting).
about the 300 KB/s download and the 10 KB/s upload lower limits, is
true, but applies to auto-speed only. So when one uses auto-speed, the
download never drops below 300 KBytes/s, and the upload - below 10 KBytes/s.
My mistake is explainable, if not excusable, by that I've been using
auto-speed almost since I started using Azureus; it is the default way I
run it. So gradually the limitations of that mode took over in my mind,
to the exclusion of all else. :) And finding the limits hard-coded in
the source served only to entrench them.
>> I meant the Azu/Vuze releases. Are you updating it?
>
> Ah, I see. Actually the same comment applies. It hasn't been updated in
> all that time (v 4.1.0.2 until recently it was the only version TheBox
> would approve).
trackers, which are relatively safer than the usual demonoid etc.
> (Interesting .... Thunderbird's spell-checker keeps wanting to replace
> Mb/s with MB/s :-) )
but balks at gigabit.
Sid Elbow
Mar 4, 2012, 7:51:16 PM3/4/12
to
On 3/3/2012 1:51 PM, Patok wrote:
> Sid Elbow wrote:
>> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>>
>>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
>>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>>
>> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
>> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
>> explain some of my comments :-) )
>
> Duh. :) I implicitly used KBytes/s; I thought it was clear. Whenever I
> meant bits, I explicitly spelled them out.
No offence, Patok - what confused me was that my original post was
> Sid Elbow wrote:
>> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>>
>>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but 300
>>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>>
>> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
>> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
>> explain some of my comments :-) )
>
> Duh. :) I implicitly used KBytes/s; I thought it was clear. Whenever I
> meant bits, I explicitly spelled them out.
referring to upload speed settings and when you said that Azureus/Vuze
has a hard coded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source code I assumed
you were referring to upload speed in response. 300 KBytes/s is roughly
3 Mbits/s (in order to actually use that [upload] speed you probably
need a service capability of 5 Mbits/s upload). I figured no one would
write a torrent client using that as a hard-coded minimum (upload) speed
so I though that perhaps you meant to write 300 Kb/s. Even that wouldn't
be very credible as a minimum upload speed limit.
> Now this is embarrassing. :( You are correct, it can. What I wrote,
> about the 300 KB/s download and the 10 KB/s upload lower limits, is
> true, but applies to auto-speed only. So when one uses auto-speed, the
> download never drops below 300 KBytes/s, and the upload - below 10
> KBytes/s.
speed limit. I still find it unbelievable that anyone would force that
as a minimum :-) and don't know what it has to do with my original
question but then, I'm getting lost anyway :-)
> Is TheBox thebox dot bz? Is it worth it? I usually use several ethnic
> trackers, which are relatively safer than the usual demonoid etc.
tracker and you have to maintain a ratio but they give you quite a bit
of help getting there and maintaining it.
~misfit~
Mar 5, 2012, 1:26:34 AM3/5/12
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 4:42 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Ohh, is Bernie getting the once-over by the leeches? Couldn't happen
>> to a nicer guy. ;-)
>
> Quite.
;-)
>
>> Ohh, is Bernie getting the once-over by the leeches? Couldn't happen
>> to a nicer guy. ;-)
>
> Quite.
>> Only two weeks until the Australian GP. :-)
>
> Yeah. And with Kimi back there are 6 former champions!
a lot of talented young drivers who can't get an F1 seat (or even have lost
an F1 seat) for the above to have happened.
I think The Schu's days are done, he should just retire and let a young
fella have a shot. (LOL, 'the curse of the commentator', Ross will likely
build the car around Schu now [ignoring Nico] and he'll do well.)
Take care,
Sid Elbow
Mar 6, 2012, 5:32:47 PM3/6/12
to
On 3/3/2012 4:42 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links and
> 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
I believe you needed 4.3.something or later. I've been digging into this
> 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
a bit lately ..... how do you get AZ/Vuze to use the magnetic link?
(I've got an awful feeling that you are going to tell me that the
browser - Firefox in my case - has to be set up to recognise magnetic
links and send them to Vuze .... and that both browser and Vuze have to
be on the same machine).
Patok
Mar 6, 2012, 5:57:44 PM3/6/12
to
Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 1:51 PM, Patok wrote:
>> Sid Elbow wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>>>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but
>>>> 300
>>>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>>>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>>>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>>>
>>> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
>>> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
>>> explain some of my comments :-) )
>>
>> Duh. :) I implicitly used KBytes/s; I thought it was clear. Whenever I
>> meant bits, I explicitly spelled them out.
>
> No offence, Patok - what confused me was that my original post was
> referring to upload speed settings and when you said that Azureus/Vuze
> has a hard coded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source code I assumed
> you were referring to upload speed in response. 300 KBytes/s is roughly
> 3 Mbits/s (in order to actually use that [upload] speed you probably
> need a service capability of 5 Mbits/s upload). I figured no one would
> write a torrent client using that as a hard-coded minimum (upload) speed
> so I though that perhaps you meant to write 300 Kb/s. Even that wouldn't
> be very credible as a minimum upload speed limit.
Well, you were confused, because I was confused, and mislead you. The
> On 3/3/2012 1:51 PM, Patok wrote:
>> Sid Elbow wrote:
>>> On 2/28/2012 3:28 PM, Patok wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not credible, but for a different reason - I misremembered. :(
>>>> There *are* hardcoded lower limits for both download and upload, but
>>>> 300
>>>> is the limit for download, while the limit for upload is 10. So you are
>>>> correct - your upload speed should be able to go down to 10 KB/s, while
>>>> your download speed should be limited to no less than 300.
>>>
>>> 300 what? Respectfully Patok, could you review the difference between
>>> KB/s and Kb/s and then re-read this thread in that light(it might
>>> explain some of my comments :-) )
>>
>> Duh. :) I implicitly used KBytes/s; I thought it was clear. Whenever I
>> meant bits, I explicitly spelled them out.
>
> No offence, Patok - what confused me was that my original post was
> referring to upload speed settings and when you said that Azureus/Vuze
> has a hard coded lower limit of 300 KB/s, in the source code I assumed
> you were referring to upload speed in response. 300 KBytes/s is roughly
> 3 Mbits/s (in order to actually use that [upload] speed you probably
> need a service capability of 5 Mbits/s upload). I figured no one would
> write a torrent client using that as a hard-coded minimum (upload) speed
> so I though that perhaps you meant to write 300 Kb/s. Even that wouldn't
> be very credible as a minimum upload speed limit.
300 KB/s limit is real, I just misremembered what and when it applied
to. I *did* think it applied to uploads, while it actually applies only
to downloads, in auto-speed mode only.
>> Now this is embarrassing. :( You are correct, it can. What I wrote,
>> about the 300 KB/s download and the 10 KB/s upload lower limits, is
>> true, but applies to auto-speed only. So when one uses auto-speed, the
>> download never drops below 300 KBytes/s, and the upload - below 10
>> KBytes/s.
>
> I see now that you were talking 300KBytes/s as a minimum *download*
> speed limit. I still find it unbelievable that anyone would force that
> as a minimum :-) and don't know what it has to do with my original
> question but then, I'm getting lost anyway :-)
>> Is TheBox thebox dot bz? Is it worth it? I usually use several ethnic
>> trackers, which are relatively safer than the usual demonoid etc.
>
> If you like their content yes, it's well worth it. It's a private
> tracker and you have to maintain a ratio but they give you quite a bit
> of help getting there and maintaining it.
Patok
Mar 6, 2012, 6:12:35 PM3/6/12
to
way of copy-pasting across computers? (Like controlling both of them via
a common keyboard and mouse, using a program like Synergy, or remote
desktop, or somesuch.) If you have it, you can use the following procedure:
Open the page with the magnet link in FF, and "copy link location".
In Azureus (same or different computer) Do File->Open->Torrent file. If
it is working properly, there will be an "Add From Clipboard" button -
use it. If not, press "Add URL" and paste the magnet link. After that,
proceed as usual.
Sid Elbow
Mar 6, 2012, 8:15:54 PM3/6/12
to
On 3/6/2012 6:12 PM, Patok wrote:
> Normally yes to both questions, but not necessarily. Do you have a way
> of copy-pasting across computers? (Like controlling both of them via a
> common keyboard and mouse, using a program like Synergy, or remote
> desktop, or somesuch.) If you have it, you can use the following procedure:
Yes, I do. Thanks Patok.
> Normally yes to both questions, but not necessarily. Do you have a way
> of copy-pasting across computers? (Like controlling both of them via a
> common keyboard and mouse, using a program like Synergy, or remote
> desktop, or somesuch.) If you have it, you can use the following procedure:
I have VNC from my working machine to my (pretty much) dedicated torrent
machine in the basement and I can copy/paste between them.
I'll have to update my Az/Vuze though.
Sid Elbow
Mar 6, 2012, 8:26:32 PM3/6/12
to
On 3/6/2012 5:57 PM, Patok wrote:
>> If you like their content yes, it's well worth it. It's a private
>> tracker and you have to maintain a ratio but they give you quite a bit
>> of help getting there and maintaining it.
>
> Thanks, this is good to know.
Just to expand on that a bit, they have a lot of "free" torrents - the
>> If you like their content yes, it's well worth it. It's a private
>> tracker and you have to maintain a ratio but they give you quite a bit
>> of help getting there and maintaining it.
>
> Thanks, this is good to know.
downloaded bytes aren't counted against you but anything you upload
counts for you.
Included in this are all the soaps; one or more "Free Leech Of The Week"
(FLOTW) around Thursday midnight (usually several Gigs; often
interesting stuff) and the first instalment of any new season for a
series. There's quite a bit in those to get your ratio in order quickly
especially if you can use the RSS feed to automate it. And you can dump
anything you don't want after a day or two.
You can also make a donation which gets you some upload credit
instantaneously. (In fact, my brother has limited bandwidth and he
prefers to make a small monthly donation for his relatively limited
downloads).
Not Disclosed
Mar 6, 2012, 10:08:26 PM3/6/12
to
I don't mean to but in this late but there IS a better program...
http://www.qbittorrent.org/ it has a BUILT IN search capability (as long
as you install python), it is FULLY configurable, it has IP filtering
capability, AND you can get the source if you really want to see what it
is doing! it so far as I am concerned is the BOMB! (just needs IPv6 to be
built in now). and as for the extreme speeds both up AND down your looking
for/at you should check out this book and this web site...
Hacking the Cable Modem: What Cable Companies Don't Want You to Know
http://www.tcniso.net/
for $150.00 you can have a cable modem that can download AND upload at
FULL SPEED (no throttled bandwidth) but you must be careful not to do
anything stupid and get caught using it to steal cable modem access... PAY
for your service, just use it UNCAPPED!
P.S. Will TRY and up load a copy of the book ASAP...
http://www.qbittorrent.org/ it has a BUILT IN search capability (as long
as you install python), it is FULLY configurable, it has IP filtering
capability, AND you can get the source if you really want to see what it
is doing! it so far as I am concerned is the BOMB! (just needs IPv6 to be
built in now). and as for the extreme speeds both up AND down your looking
for/at you should check out this book and this web site...
Hacking the Cable Modem: What Cable Companies Don't Want You to Know
http://www.tcniso.net/
for $150.00 you can have a cable modem that can download AND upload at
FULL SPEED (no throttled bandwidth) but you must be careful not to do
anything stupid and get caught using it to steal cable modem access... PAY
for your service, just use it UNCAPPED!
P.S. Will TRY and up load a copy of the book ASAP...
Sid Elbow
Mar 7, 2012, 5:35:55 PM3/7/12
to
If (big "if") this isn't simply spam, I really find posts like this a
non-sequiteur (that's the polite version). Someone has been using a
program for years, he's comfortable with it and it fills all his needs.
He has a small problem - probably a configuration error - and posts to
see if anyone can shed some light.
A responder then advises him to install a totally different program (the
poster's own particular favourite of course, which will inevitably have
its own set of configuration problems anyway), totally glossing over the
hassle he'll have to go through in installing and learning the new
program, not to mention the work involved in importing torrents he's
currently seeding (many hundred in my case) into the new client.
It ain't gonna happen - any more than I'd buy a new car if I was having
trouble with my glove-box lock or get a new house because the laundry
room faucet needs a new washer (it does).
Sledgehammer to crack a nut.
non-sequiteur (that's the polite version). Someone has been using a
program for years, he's comfortable with it and it fills all his needs.
He has a small problem - probably a configuration error - and posts to
see if anyone can shed some light.
A responder then advises him to install a totally different program (the
poster's own particular favourite of course, which will inevitably have
its own set of configuration problems anyway), totally glossing over the
hassle he'll have to go through in installing and learning the new
program, not to mention the work involved in importing torrents he's
currently seeding (many hundred in my case) into the new client.
It ain't gonna happen - any more than I'd buy a new car if I was having
trouble with my glove-box lock or get a new house because the laundry
room faucet needs a new washer (it does).
Sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Sid Elbow
Mar 7, 2012, 9:06:35 PM3/7/12
to
On 3/3/2012 4:42 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links and
> 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
Shaun, did you do that as a single upgrade. That is did you just
> 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
download 4.6.0.4 and overlay your 4.2.0.2?
If so, did it preserve all your settings and any torrents you were
seeding / downloading?
~misfit~
Mar 8, 2012, 2:36:50 AM3/8/12
to
Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sid Elbow wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 4:42 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links
>> and 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
>
> Shaun, did you do that as a single upgrade. That is did you just
> download 4.6.0.4 and overlay your 4.2.0.2?
Yes.
>
>> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links
>> and 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
>
> Shaun, did you do that as a single upgrade. That is did you just
> download 4.6.0.4 and overlay your 4.2.0.2?
> If so, did it preserve all your settings and any torrents you were
> seeding / downloading?
boot partition with Acronis first, JIC the shit hit the fan, something I'd
recommend anyone who is upgrading / installing something significant to do.)
Best,
Sid Elbow
Mar 8, 2012, 9:36:39 AM3/8/12
to
On 3/8/2012 2:36 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links
>>> and 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
>>
>> Shaun, did you do that as a single upgrade. That is did you just
>> download 4.6.0.4 and overlay your 4.2.0.2?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If so, did it preserve all your settings and any torrents you were
>> seeding / downloading?
>
> Yes. It worked rather well actually, I'm quite impressed. (I did back up my
> boot partition with Acronis first, JIC the shit hit the fan, something I'd
> recommend anyone who is upgrading / installing something significant to do.)
OK, thanks Shaun. What had me wondering is that, if I check for updates
>>> Heh! I just upgraded to 4.6.0.4 as TPB was only serving magnet links
>>> and 4.2.0.2 didn't work with them, or at least my install didn't. :(
>>
>> Shaun, did you do that as a single upgrade. That is did you just
>> download 4.6.0.4 and overlay your 4.2.0.2?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If so, did it preserve all your settings and any torrents you were
>> seeding / downloading?
>
> Yes. It worked rather well actually, I'm quite impressed. (I did back up my
> boot partition with Acronis first, JIC the shit hit the fan, something I'd
> recommend anyone who is upgrading / installing something significant to do.)
on my 4.1.0.2, it comes back with 4.2.0.2 (not the latest 4.6.whatever).
As though it wants me to incrementally upgrade.
And yes, I had planned to back up first :-)
Bloody TPB!
0 new messages