 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
