Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 3mbit down, 256kbit up.
>
> I set a 20KB/s limit on BitTorrent upload so it doesn't cause problems for
> other Internet activity. Currently it seems to be uploading at a constant
> 18-20KB/s.
>
> Bumping limit up to 25KB/s... Aaaand it's still uploading at pretty constant
> speed, averaging 24.96KB/s.

you're mean.  I generally limit at 70KB/s.  That is fair enough.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:57:54 +0100, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 3mbit down, 256kbit up.
>>
>> I set a 20KB/s limit on BitTorrent upload so it doesn't cause problems  
>> for
>> other Internet activity. Currently it seems to be uploading at a  
>> constant
>> 18-20KB/s.
>>
>> Bumping limit up to 25KB/s... Aaaand it's still uploading at pretty  
>> constant
>> speed, averaging 24.96KB/s.
>
> you're mean.  I generally limit at 70KB/s.  That is fair enough.

That would be rather counterproductive when the upload capacity of his  
Internet connection is only 32 kB/s (in theory; practically, it likely  
tops out at 25 or so).


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

>> - Downloaders try to download from the fastest uploader [from their
>> location on the network].
> 
> No, downloaders download from multiple uploaders. Not from "the" fastest. 
> And I don't think torrent clients care about "location on the network" yet.

Download speed is used as an approximation for network proximity. And 
yes, each machine downloads from multiple peers, but it tries to select 
the fastest such peers.

>> - But wait! This torrent has 450 seeders and 3 downloaders. And I
>> sometimes see 200 KB/sec from a single seeder, so... why THE HELL is any
>> peer going to download from me at a piffling 40 KB/sec when there are
>> peers out there at least 5x faster?
> 
> Because downloading from 10 seeders who have 40KB/s will get them the file 
> fast. The "5x faster" peer isn't fast at all if there are already 30 users 
> downloading from it!

Fair enough...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Now, here's where it all falls apart:
>
> - I have ADSL. That stands for ASYMMETRIC Digital Subscriber Line. In 
> laymen's terms, by download rate is about 5x faster than my upload rate. I 
> can download at the speedy rate of around 310 KB/sec, but I can only 
> *upload* at a maximum of about 46 KB/sec.
>
> - This means that it is physically impossible for me to upload 
> particularly fast. That should hypothetically result in low download 
> speeds.

I don't think it matters does it?  My ADSL maximum upload speed is about 45 
KB/sec too, but if I let BT use all that then other web browsing etc grinds 
to a halt.  So I have the global upload rate limited to 32 KB/sec in my BT 
client, and downloads still go at 600+ KB/sec if it's a popular file.

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing. It's just that with such a low 
> upload speed, almost no peers want to talk to you, 

So you shouldn't feel bad about just stopping it then.

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing. It's just that with such a 
>> low upload speed, almost no peers want to talk to you, 
> 
> So you shouldn't feel bad about just stopping it then.

I suppose a more pressing point is that I shouldn't feel bad about a 
bunch of anonymous IP addresses that I've never even met before. o_O

Damn, I'm pathetic and submissive even online...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

My BT client had crashed, but it has 25kBps limit to upload and 100kBps
limit to download (I have 2/0,5Mbps connection). The top file to upload
seems to be openSUSE-11.1-DVD-x86_64-iso (4442,6MB), which has history
of 11654,4MB of upload. I'm honestly surprised that he runner-up is
openSUSE-11.1-DVD-ppc-iso (3934,7MB/9983,7MB). The top ratio goes to
openSUSE-11.1-GNOME-LiveCD-x86_64-iso (681,8MB/5597,3MB, ratio being 8,21).

Just leave it running and let the automation do the tricks :).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:49:26 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Just leave it run; I usually let my torrents run until either there are
>> 0 peers for an extended period of time or until I hit a share ratio of
>> 1:1.  Sometimes I'll let them go longer, but I give priority to those
>> with a share ratio below 1:1.
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm doing. It's just that with such a low
> upload speed, almost no peers want to talk to you, so it takes an insane
> amount of time to reach parity.

Not really; I have a 3 Mbps/384 Kbps ADSL line, and while it can take a 
week or longer (especially since I throttle my upload speed to 20 KB/s 
using SpeedScheduler because otherwise other things I need the line for 
slow to a crawl), the method I use seems to work pretty well for me.  I 
guess it depends on the trackers you're using as well, though, and if 
you're pulling recently posted files (I do) or files that are much older 
where the number of peers is low to begin with.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:57:54 -0500, nemesis wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> 3mbit down, 256kbit up.
>>
>> I set a 20KB/s limit on BitTorrent upload so it doesn't cause problems
>> for other Internet activity. Currently it seems to be uploading at a
>> constant 18-20KB/s.
>>
>> Bumping limit up to 25KB/s... Aaaand it's still uploading at pretty
>> constant speed, averaging 24.96KB/s.
> 
> you're mean.  I generally limit at 70KB/s.  That is fair enough.

Only if you have a fast enough connection.  I measured my connection 
(which sounds comparable to Andy's) and figured 80% of that IIRC.  So on 
the assumption that 20 KB/s is 80% of my measured (not rated) bandwidth 
(which ISTR it is), then you're proposing that I'm being "mean" by not 
using nearly 300% of my available bandwidth.  Are you nuts? ;-)

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:18:44 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> but it tries to select the
> fastest such peers.

The point is, though, "fastest such peers" depends on the utilization of 
the peers.  A peer that has a 3 Mbps upstream connection can perform 
worse for you than a peer with a 256 Kbps upstream connection if there 
are 50 peers connected to the "faster" peer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message