Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

P2P (Bittorrent etc) configuration & use discussion...ongoing (Only place to post!)

13567…33

Comments

  • #102
    Anti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,401 ✭✭✭✭Anti


    im using BT with torrents. Obvious if you are using public trackers dont expect good speeds. I use a few private ones and always max out.


  • #103
    mrs.ljungberg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭mrs.ljungberg


    Is it usual to be only getting 80/100 kb download speed or have i got some of the settings wrong


  • #104
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Anti wrote: »
    im using BT with torrents. Obvious if you are using public trackers dont expect good speeds. I use a few private ones and always max out.

    Anyone on public trackers that are poorly seeded expecting good speeds is a fool, :)


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mrs.ljungberg wrote: »
    Is it usual to be only getting 80/100 kb download speed or have i got some of the settings wrong

    Definitely something wrong, my guess is you rae using public sites? that is a big no no if you want decent speed. I used to 100kb/s on the 1mb package 4 years ago, on 20 mb you should be getting 2400kb/s!!!


  • #106
    mrs.ljungberg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭mrs.ljungberg


    david7536 wrote: »
    Definitely something wrong, my guess is you rae using public sites? that is a big no no if you want decent speed. I used to 100kb/s on the 1mb package 4 years ago, on 20 mb you should be getting 2400kb/s!!!

    I use bt junkie but I have a few private trackers in there and the speed is not much better around 200kb, I wonder should I try a different port or if ntl have them blocked


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mrs.ljungberg wrote: »
    I use bt junkie but I have a few private trackers in there and the speed is not much better around 200kb, I wonder should I try a different port or if ntl have them blocked

    Make sure your speed is not limited below its potential in utorrent, turn on encryption and portforward: http://portforward.com/routers.htm...
    What private sites?(pm me) i will tell you if this is usual speed for them or if you should expect more...


  • #108
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    torrents still seem very popular in ireland. When I talk to people i know irl and they tell me about the things they download, legal and otherwise :rolleyes:, most of them mention using torrents. Seems to be the modern napster of the last few years.

    The idea of a file not being stored in any one place, of several thousand people sharing the file together. File sharing in this peer to peer format is safe from some daft greedy american corporation trying to steal a persons right to share with other people. Its fabulous in principal and I highly doubt it the concept will ever be shut down.....because it can't be really. Would be like trying to kill the internet.

    I respect the idea of peer to peer alot. But i liken BitTorrent to Linux. I respect the idea of Linux, but in practice I'll always use windows. Its just better in ways that matter to me.

    BT has issues.... it's not user friendly, there are too many clients of varying quality out there. Users have to port forward....most unsuccesfully it has to be said. Some ISP's throttle torrents which means lower speeds too. Its rife with viruses and spyware aswell and even diligent users encounter it. And a good chunk of its users are frustrated with low speeds.

    Now, some of you think these issues dont apply to you because you use private torrents. But perhaps you have skipped a logic beat here. The idea of peer to peer is to share files with everyone.....thats how the file stays alive. If the torrent scene devolves into a bunch of small seperate groups, it wont last long.

    But disregarding that idea for the moment, in my own eyes, 90% of torrent seeders and leechers are joe average users who use public torrents. Ive always found a torrent is usually its healthiest from about 2 days life to about a month. Meaning if you wanted to download yesterdays Olympics program you would be fine, with thousands of people seeding it. But, to use an irish example, what if you wanted to download the Sonia O' Sullivans silver medal race in the Sydney Olympics? Bad example maybe because not many people would want to:). but thats my point, its a few years old and nobody is going to be seeding it. Ultimately, you are relying ONLY on other people to seed the things you want. You are relying on them having the file, being online, feeling like sharing, etc.

    My max download speed is now about 850 kbs. Ill rarely ever get that with torrents....and the hassle of finding the file I want with enough seeds to make it worthwhile is just too annoying to do on a regular basis. I prefer straight up FTP or rapidshare. Max speeds, ulpoaded once by users and then the uploader doesnt have to seed or maintain anything. Its there for the whole internet to use.

    Point im trying to make is, comments about rapidshare being dead within two years seem well founded. Servers physically hold a single file are vulnerable. But I wouldnt be surprised either if the BitTorrent protocol was dead in a couple years either because of its flaws and replaced by another more efficient peer to peer system. Ill take rapidshare any day of the week.


  • #109
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Kirby wrote: »
    I respect the idea of peer to peer alot. But i liken BitTorrent to Linux. I respect the idea of Linux, but in practice I'll always use windows. Its just better in ways that matter to me.

    This is down to the user not knowing how to use Linux
    BT has issues.... it's not user friendly, there are too many clients of varying quality out there. Users have to port forward....most unsuccesfully it has to be said. Some ISP's throttle torrents which means lower speeds too. Its rife with viruses and spyware aswell and even diligent users encounter it. And a good chunk of its users are frustrated with low speeds.

    Is is down to the user noty knowing how to use the client and configure their router, also down to the user for downloading from public sites and its also down to the user and other users like them for limiting their upload so that means downloads are slower for everybody...again public trackers and the amount of leeches on them
    Now, some of you think these issues dont apply to you because you use private torrents. But perhaps you have skipped a logic beat here. The idea of peer to peer is to share files with everyone.....thats how the file stays alive. If the torrent scene devolves into a bunch of small seperate groups, it wont last long.

    Private sites often have lets say 20-30K users that don't just use their cable or dsl connections for downloading and seeding and instead use dedicated servers....files can be often seeded for years
    But disregarding that idea for the moment, in my own eyes, 90% of torrent seeders and leechers are joe average users who use public torrents. Ive always found a torrent is usually its healthiest from about 2 days life to about a month.

    Perhaps but this is again down to joe average users who cap their uploads and instead just leech and giver nothing back, this is not the failing of the bittorrent client or protocal and instead the user for not using it correctly

    Its like saying windows is ****e cause I couldn't install it but then I didn't actually follow any instructions. :rolleyes:
    Meaning if you wanted to download yesterdays Olympics program you would be fine, with thousands of people seeding it. But, to use an irish example, what if you wanted to download the Sonia O' Sullivans silver medal race in the Sydney Olympics? Bad example maybe because not many people would want to:). but thats my point, its a few years old and nobody is going to be seeding it. Ultimately, you are relying ONLY on other people to seed the things you want. You are relying on them having the file, being online, feeling like sharing, etc.

    Again fault of the average joe soap user who is a leech :)
    My max download speed is now about 850 kbs. Ill rarely ever get that with torrents....and the hassle of finding the file I want with enough seeds to make it worthwhile is just too annoying to do on a regular basis.

    Again down to use most likely public trackers with average users on them :)
    I prefer straight up FTP or rapidshare. Max speeds, ulpoaded once by users and then the uploader doesnt have to seed or maintain anything. Its there for the whole internet to use.

    Its easy to use bittorrent with upload/download and still be able to use the net you just got to configure things correctly :)
    Point im trying to make is, comments about rapidshare being dead within two years seem well founded. Servers physically hold a single file are vulnerable. But I wouldnt be surprised either if the BitTorrent protocol was dead in a couple years either because of its flaws and replaced by another more efficient peer to peer system. Ill take rapidshare any day of the week.

    Perhaps it'll be replaced with a new protocol or it'll just evolve as it is with encryption and other add-ons, at the end of the day rapidshare can be killed off as a whole in one day...bittorrent can't :)


  • #110
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Cabaal wrote: »
    [noparse]
    Point im trying to make is, comments about rapidshare being dead within two years seem well founded. Servers physically hold a single file are vulnerable. But I wouldnt be surprised either if the BitTorrent protocol was dead in a couple years either because of its flaws and replaced by another more efficient peer to peer system. Ill take rapidshare any day of the week.[/QUOTE][/noparse]
    [/QUOTE]
    Caabal fails at bbcode :P


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cabaal, thanks for taking the time to write that rebuttle! i agree on all points but have no time to write a thesis of similiar length.
    Not to sound like a torrentfanboy...but...If you can configure all the right elements, access private sites (some of which are dedicated to archiving old files that are unavailable anywhere else and rewarding members for seeding indefinitely) then you are, imo, in a much better positon as regards, security, availability and most importantly speed (private sites with multiple dedicated servers seeding files) than if you use any of the direct download alternatives.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    Caabal fails at bbcode :P

    fixed :)


  • #113
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    david7536 wrote: »
    Cabaal, thanks for taking the time to write that rebuttle! i agree on all points but have no time to write a thesis of similiar length.
    Not to sound like a torrentfanboy...but...If you can configure all the right elements, access private sites (some of which are dedicated to archiving old files that are unavailable anywhere else and rewarding members for seeding indefinitely) then you are, imo, in a much better positon as regards, security, availability and most importantly speed (private sites with multiple dedicated servers seeding files) than if you use any of the direct download alternatives.

    I'd agree on the aspect that rapidshare is suitable for some people, for example...those with a slow upload speed or those that are lazy and leech :)

    But their are plenty of Bittorrent sites out their some pirvate or semi-private that have rules that ensure that users seed files correctly like bittorrent is supposed to be used

    I personally would have any interest in using rapidshare for any kind of content,


  • #114
    barnicles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭barnicles


    uTorrent 1.8 is good IMO.


  • #115
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    interesting response, but it just highlights the problems BT has.

    Nearly all of your rebuttals are in the realm of "if the user does this" or "when the user configures it correctly" and "private servers..." etc etc.
    At the end of the day, if most users cant operate it correctly as you have admitted, it IS the fault of the protocol, not the user.
    This is down to the user not knowing how to use Linux
    Thats because linux is difficult to use. Most Linux users are complete posers....who run it for "cool" points with their mates but then still dual boot windows when they actually want to DO something.
    Perhaps but this is again down to joe average users who cap their uploads and instead just leech and giver nothing back, this is not the failing of the bittorrent client or protocal and instead the user for not using it correctly

    This is completely crazy logic. Its like removing traffic lights from the road network and then saying its the fault of the user for crashing their car. Its the protocols fault for not enforcing the traffic lights. Weird analogy maybe, but i think its pretty apt. You claim that the problem with bittorrent....is its users. Think about that comment for a moment tbh. "The trouble with Scotland, is that its full of scots."

    Anyway, this is just my opinion and its nice to see other peoples take on the subject. Just seems to me alot of people have issues with throttling, ports, speeds etc with bittorrent. Seems like these people would be happier with other methods.


  • #116
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Kirby wrote: »
    interesting response, but it just highlights the problems BT has.

    Nearly all of your rebuttals are in the realm of "if the user does this" or "when the user configures it correctly" and "private servers..." etc etc.
    At the end of the day, if most users cant operate it correctly as you have admitted, it IS the fault of the protocol, not the user.


    Thats because linux is difficult to use. Most Linux users are complete posers....who run it for "cool" points with their mates but then still dual boot windows when they actually want to DO something.



    This is completely crazy logic. Its like removing traffic lights from the road network and then saying its the fault of the user for crashing their car. Its the protocols fault for not enforcing the traffic lights. Weird analogy maybe, but i think its pretty apt. You claim that the problem with bittorrent....is its users. Think about that comment for a moment tbh. "The trouble with Scotland, is that its full of scots."

    Anyway, this is just my opinion and its nice to see other peoples take on the subject. Just seems to me alot of people have issues with throttling, ports, speeds etc with bittorrent. Seems like these people would be happier with other methods.
    You seem to be the kind of poster that just wants something to work out of the box.
    Bittorrent is not for you then.

    I am the kind of poster who will learn how a new thing works and will then tinker and improve that so that it is customised to my needs. An engineer if you wish. :pac:


  • #117
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    Whats great about BT is the content available. The bad thing about BT is the speeds. Bram Cohen (the creator of BT) has asperger syndrome which means he's a mathematical genius and extremely technical minded but he is completely retarded when it comes to social skills. So the technology behind BT is great, the social aspects which that technology depends on fail miserably. It relies on a type of "Bittorrent etiqutte" which is total BS and made by someone who clearly has no grasp on the social aspect of things.

    Usenet is far superior but its just a pity you have to pay the middle man. I pay enough for my broadband and as long as BT is giving me everything I need for free it'll do. But I'm under no illusions, the protocol sucks big time.


  • #118
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    The protocol is amazing when you actaully think about what it is doing and how it transfers files by taking little bits off of different people, I'm a joe bloggs user and think it's great, have never had any techno trouble with it, can get anything I want anytime, software, music, film, big thumbs up


  • #119
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    You seem to be the kind of poster that just wants something to work out of the box.
    Bittorrent is not for you then.

    I am the kind of poster who will learn how a new thing works and will then tinker and improve that so that it is customised to my needs. An engineer if you wish. :pac:

    Dont mistake my understanding of the masses as my own preferences. I love a good tinker. I like when a person can take something good and make it better. But the common perception about is that bittorrent is the best service out there, which it isnt for most people.

    With regards to out of the box functionality.....EVERYTHING should work out the box. You shouldn't have to tinker with something to make it work. Options and improvements to make a good thing better is fine. Tinkering to fine tune something to your liking...like a car or projector. But it should work out of the box on its own. Most people have to google torrents ad naseum just to get them to mediocre functionality. Thats my issue with it.

    Again, dont get me wrong. Torrents arent evil or anything :) I used torrents for years but mainly because I thought it was the best option for me at the time. I know better now though.


  • #120
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    Kirby wrote: »
    Dont mistake my understanding of the masses as my own preferences. I love a good tinker. I like when a person can take something good and make it better. But the common perception about is that bittorrent is the best service out there, which it isnt for most people.

    With regards to out of the box functionality.....EVERYTHING should work out the box. You shouldn't have to tinker with something to make it work. Options and improvements to make a good thing better is fine. Tinkering to fine tune something to your liking...like a car or projector. But it should work out of the box on its own. Most people have to google torrents ad naseum just to get them to mediocre functionality. Thats my issue with it.

    Again, dont get me wrong. Torrents arent evil or anything :) I used torrents for years but mainly because I thought it was the best option for me at the time. I know better now though.

    I think you'll see a shift now that we have decent download speeds in Ireland. The limited download speeds on BT will be glaringly obvious. Think of all the people upgrading to 7.6mb or 24mb so that they can download their torrents quicker...they're in for a shock!!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    I think you'll see a shift now that we have decent download speeds in Ireland. The limited download speeds on BT will be glaringly obvious. Think of all the people upgrading to 7.6mb or 24mb so that they can download their torrents quicker...they're in for a shock!!

    Joseph, im sorry but, you have just shown that you have not investigated the possibilities of bittorrent sites fully if you think people are in for a shock as regards speed. There are 100s of bittorrent sites, some fully private, some semi-private that will easily max out a 100mbit connection, never mind a 24mbit one. I have a gigabit server which will frequently get in excess of 50mb/s (50,000kbit/s) down on topsites and 20-30mb/s down on semi-private sites...I am unfamiliar with the possible speeds attainable with rapidshare, please fill me in?


  • #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kirby wrote: »
    interesting response, but it just highlights the problems BT has.

    Nearly all of your rebuttals are in the realm of "if the user does this" or "when the user configures it correctly" and "private servers..." etc etc.
    At the end of the day, if most users cant operate it correctly as you have admitted, it IS the fault of the protocol, not the user.


    Thats because linux is difficult to use. Most Linux users are complete posers....who run it for "cool" points with their mates but then still dual boot windows when they actually want to DO something.



    This is completely crazy logic. Its like removing traffic lights from the road network and then saying its the fault of the user for crashing their car. Its the protocols fault for not enforcing the traffic lights. Weird analogy maybe, but i think its pretty apt. You claim that the problem with bittorrent....is its users. Think about that comment for a moment tbh. "The trouble with Scotland, is that its full of scots."

    Anyway, this is just my opinion and its nice to see other peoples take on the subject. Just seems to me alot of people have issues with throttling, ports, speeds etc with bittorrent. Seems like these people would be happier with other methods.

    I think we are discussing this from two very differant viewpoints. If You want a pay to leech service that will give decent speed and no obligation to seed back what you give then rapidshare is for you.

    if on the other hand, you want the fastest possible speeds, faster pre-times, no cost and are willing to use your upload bandwidth to give back then bittorrent is for you. Apparent security advantages apply here aswell(time will tell on this!)

    Oversimplified? possibly, But i think we need to build this discussion further only if we acknowledge that differant users have differant needs (and restraints) and that the protocol chosen is largely dictated by these.


  • #123
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    david7536 wrote: »
    Joseph, im sorry but, you have just shown that you have not investigated the possibilities of bittorrent sites fully if you think people are in for a shock as regards speed. There are 100s of bittorrent sites, some fully private, some semi-private that will easily max out a 100mbit connection, never mind a 24mbit one. I have a gigabit server which will frequently get in excess of 50mb/s (50,000kbit/s) down on topsites and 20-30mb/s down on semi-private sites...I am unfamiliar with the possible speeds attainable with rapidshare, please fill me in?

    Where can you get 100mb broadband in Ireland? And even if you did have 100mb its all based on your upload speed, (not to mention no. of seeds, peers etc) The latest 7.6mb and 24mb lines only have an upload bandwidth of 800kb, so you're only ever going to get a fraction of your downlod capacity with that fraction being less with the 24mb line.

    What I'm talking about is old school straight forward downloading. Where your download speed is based on the upload bandwidth of the server you are downloading from and your own download bandwidth.

    Try downloading a linux iso off HEAnet and compare your speeds to bittorrent.

    Privarte trackers do improve your speeds but what does it say about the protocol when people have to be forced into obeying the ettiquette in order for it to work? Its also misleading to say your download speed is the time it takes you to download something. When you have to wait days (weeks even depending on the file size) until you've finished seeding before you can download something else.

    I don't want to bittorrent bash here, as I've said its what I use purely for content and decentralisation. but lets not hype it up and make it out to be something its not.

    hopefully it will be taken that step further and truely become the mother of all protocols. Its unlikely as its been 6 or 7 years already and no improvements of any great scale.


  • #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    Where can you get 100mb broadband in Ireland? And even if you did have 100mb its all based on your upload speed, (not to mention no. of seeds, peers etc) The latest 7.6mb and 24mb lines only have an upload bandwidth of 800kb, so you're only ever going to get a fraction of your downlod capacity with that fraction being less with the 24mb line.

    What I'm talking about is old school straight forward downloading. Where your download speed is based on the server you are downloading from and your download bandwidth.

    Try downloading a linux iso off HEAnet and compare your speeds to bittorrent.

    Privarte trackers do improve your speeds but what does it say about the protocol when people have to be forced into obeying the ettiquette in order for it to work? Its also misleading to say your download speed is the time it takes you to download something. When you have to wait days (weeks even depending on the file size) until you've finished uploading before you can download something else.

    I have 100mbit at work, and it is widely available in cities if you have the cash. That was used to show the possible speeds and not the real world expectation of Joe Bloggs.

    You are way off on the fractions of downloads comment, bittorent download speed is not inversely proportional to the speed at which you upload but has been shown to be more influenced by the upload speed and availability of the file within the entire swarm.

    Linux iso: on work 100mbit: 1.7mb/s
    Well seeded torrent off tl: 9.4mb/s
    You have helped me prove my point, as regards speed at least...

    We are back to the arguement of which protocol suits users best, those willing to donate upload bandwidth will find benefits in bt while those willing to risk a less secure, pay to leach service may find rapidshare to be better for them.

    you have misrepresented yourself by stating "Its also misleading to say your download speed is the time it takes you to download something. When you have to wait days (weeks even depending on the file size) until you've finished uploading before you can download something else."

    The download speed is exactly that for me upload from a seedbox for a week and you have a good enough ratio to keep you going for at least a year of heavy downloading.
    While this may be outside the realm of some users it brings us back to the question of which protocol suits which user given his or her restraints whether they be technical knowledge or just the time needed to set it up properly.

    If you want the best possible speed, security and availabilty and are willing to invest some time to set this up then you can reap the benefits of bittorrent as a scalable protocol which will provide faster speeds based on the input of the swarm.

    If you are happy to pay for a unencrypted direct download for a fee then probably you should look at rapidshare.


  • #125
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    I'm tempted to sign on for rapidshare for a month to see what the craic is, it's only 6.99


  • #126
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    The latest 7.6mb and 24mb lines only have an upload bandwidth of 800kb, so you're only ever going to get a fraction of your downlod capacity with that fraction being less with the 24mb line.
    They have 1mbps up. We actually had an argument about it before.
    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    Privarte trackers do improve your speeds but what does it say about the protocol when people have to be forced into obeying the ettiquette in order for it to work?
    You wouldnt be downloading anything if nobody followed ettiquette. You are only able to download torrents in the first place because people seed after downloading.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    They have 1mbps up. We actually had an argument about it before.

    You won't get 1mb, max you'll get is 800kb.


  • #128
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    You won't get 1mb, max you'll get is 800mb.
    I'd be very happy with 800mb ;)


  • #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    I'd be very happy with 800mb ;)

    Lol, as would i!


  • #130
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    david7536 wrote: »
    I have 100mbit at work, and it is widely available in cities if you have the cash. That was used to show the possible speeds and not the real world expectation of Joe Bloggs.

    You are way off on the fractions of downloads comment, bittorent download speed is not inversely proportional to the speed at which you upload but has been shown to be more influenced by the upload speed and availability of the file within the entire swarm.

    Linux iso: on work 100mbit: 1.7mb/s
    Well seeded torrent off tl: 9.4mb/s
    You have helped me prove my point, as regards speed at least...

    We are back to the arguement of which protocol suits users best, those willing to donate upload bandwidth will find benefits in bt while those willing to risk a less secure, pay to leach service may find rapidshare to be better for them.

    you have misrepresented yourself by stating "Its also misleading to say your download speed is the time it takes you to download something. When you have to wait days (weeks even depending on the file size) until you've finished uploading before you can download something else."

    The download speed is exactly that for me upload from a seedbox for a week and you have a good enough ratio to keep you going for at least a year of heavy downloading.
    While this may be outside the realm of some users it brings us back to the question of which protocol suits which user given his or her restraints whether they be technical knowledge or just the time needed to set it up properly.

    If you want the best possible speed, security and availabilty and are willing to invest some time to set this up then you can reap the benefits of bittorrent as a scalable protocol which will provide faster speeds based on the input of the swarm.

    If you are happy to pay for a unencrypted direct download for a fee then probably you should look at rapidshare.

    OK I see your point. If you have a super fast connection bittorrent is the way to go. You'll find very few servers that will offer enough bandwidth to max out a 100mb line. For us lowly peasants on 7.6mb/1mb lines good old fashioned servers are the way to go.
    david7536 wrote: »
    You are way off on the fractions of downloads comment
    I never gave the ratio as I don't know it, I don't think anyone does do they? What I'm saying is the more you upload, the more you'll be able to download. And I don't mean private tracker rules I mean within the protocol itself. I can only speak for 7.6mb line but I have yet to max it out or even come close. approx 200kb is the max I've seen. For HD content (which have less seeds and peers) you're talking 40kb-100kb.


  • #131
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    I have yet to max it out or even come close. approx 200kb is the max I've seen. For HD content (which have less seeds and peers) you're talking 40kb-100kb.
    You are using the wrong torrents so.. Get a properly seeded torrent and it will max any connection out.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    You are using the wrong torrents so.. Get a properly seeded torrent and it will max any connection out.

    yep....it all depends.


  • #133
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    yep....it all depends.

    You have effectively proved yourself wrong. The problem is with the torrent you have been downloading, not with the protocol itself.


  • #134
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    You have effectively proved yourself wrong. The problem is with the torrent you have been downloading, not with the protocol itself.

    No I have not proved myself wrong. You have proved you do not understand the technology. Here I go repeating myself. The protocol is seeders/leechers/ratios/upload speeds/max no. of connections blah blah blah and likewise you need your peers to have the same decent parameters. That IS the protocol and all my point is is that it is inherently flawed and you've done nothing to argue otherwise except to say "well I get good speeds".


  • #135
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    Joseph Kuhr wrote: »
    No I have not proved myself wrong. You have proved you do not understand the technology. Here I go repeating myself. The protocol is seeders/leechers/ratios/upload speeds/max no. of connections blah blah blah and likewise you need your peers to have the same decent parameters. That IS the protocol and all my point is is that it is inherently flawed and you've done nothing to argue otherwise except to say "well I get good speeds".
    Ok. How do you plan to distribute a file to the mass without having it centrally hosted but allowing people to only to download and not bother sharing? I doubt you have an answer. If you had, you would be quite rich and famous i'd say.

    Bittorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol.


  • #136
    Joseph Kuhr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Joseph Kuhr


    jmccrohan wrote: »
    Ok. How do you plan to distribute a file to the mass without having it centrally hosted but allowing people to only to download and not bother sharing? I doubt you have an answer. If you had, you would be quite rich and famous i'd say.

    Bittorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol.

    Thats got nothing to do with what I'm saying.


  • #137
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    david7536 wrote: »
    I think we are discussing this from two very differant viewpoints. If You want a pay to leech service that will give decent speed and no obligation to seed back what you give then rapidshare is for you.

    if on the other hand, you want the fastest possible speeds, faster pre-times, no cost and are willing to use your upload bandwidth to give back then bittorrent is for you. Apparent security advantages apply here aswell(time will tell on this!)

    You are showing your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject here. You refer to rapidshare services as "decent speed" while bittorrent "fastest possible speed". This is waffle mate. Nobody gets their max speed on public torrents. Rapidshare, filefactory, netload, megauplaod etc. type services offer you max download speed capability...for every file, 100% of the time. If you are going to discuss a topic, please have some common sense and leave the hyperbole at home.

    These services are free to users who upload and contribute to the network. If you only want to download, then fine. You pay for 6.99 a month and download away at your full speed. However if you upload files and they are popular, you dont pay anything. Therefore it is in peoples own interest to share files and help content grow.

    The bittorrent community isn't even a community. You have small groups hoarding files and limiting membership and users who just look out for themselves.... If you visit a file sharing forum you will see public members posting files, requesting files, friendly discussions etc. everywhere.


  • #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kirby wrote: »
    You are showing your bias and lack of knowledge on the subject here. You refer to rapidshare services as "decent speed" while bittorrent "fastest possible speed". This is waffle mate. Nobody gets their max speed on public torrents. Rapidshare, filefactory, netload, megauplaod etc. type services offer you max download speed capability...for every file, 100% of the time. If you are going to discuss a topic, please have some common sense and leave the hyperbole at home.

    These services are free to users who upload and contribute to the network. If you only want to download, then fine. You pay for 6.99 a month and download away at your full speed. However if you upload files and they are popular, you dont pay anything. Therefore it is in peoples own interest to share files and help content grow.

    The bittorrent community isn't even a community. You have small groups hoarding files and limiting membership and users who just look out for themselves.... If you visit a file sharing forum you will see public members posting files, requesting files, friendly discussions etc. everywhere.


    Bittorrent is as fast as the swarm, this means that it is potentially capable of maxing out even gbit/s connections. As i posted earlier i have seen 50mb/s on some sites (half the potential of a gigbait connection, this is a server hosted outside ireland before anyone asks!).This is not to say all users have access to this but to make the point that bittorrent has the potential to have unlimited speed.

    What i have said is in no way waffle of hyperbole, it is fact. Rapidshare, filefactory, netload, megauplaod are all only as fast as the server they are hosted on, the majority being 100mbit and some gigabit but remember this is shared between multiple downloaders at any one time. You say they max out your connection 100% of the time? Great, but what is your connection speed? And how is this a counter to my arguement that bittorent can deliver the fastest possible speeds?

    You never pay with bittorrent, if you wish to upload and share (as many do, how else do the files get shared?!) you can, thus sharing to the whole community . You think storing files on single servers is a more efficient or less selfish way of distributing than to have it on 100s or thousands of hosts worldwide, think again!

    As for your comments on community, well, i cannot even begin to say how wrong that comment is, it does show your glaring lack of familiarity with private sites, topsites and there links to "the scene" (where the vast majority of P2P files are stolen from).


    i cant discuss further as am travelling until next week, thanks to all for there input. Maybe a member of a scene group, or topsite admin or some rapidshare or usenet personnel will arrive and help close out this one!!!!


  • #139
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    david7536 wrote: »
    Bittorrent is as fast as the swarm, this means that it is potentially capable of maxing out even gbit/s connections. As i posted earlier i have seen 50mb/s on some sites (half the potential of a gigbait connection, this is a server hosted outside ireland before anyone asks!).This is not to say all users have access to this but to make the point that bittorrent has the potential to have unlimited speed.

    What i have said is in no way waffle of hyperbole, it is fact.

    You are referring to potential speed, but it isnt real-world speed. No residential user has access to lines that can download 50mbs. Most people around the world are on 8 meg connections. Some lucky people have more, in the range of 20 meg....some have less. You can wax lyrical about "potential this" and potential that, but the public dont achieve THEIR own max speeds with most torrents. Eircom has huge market share in Ireland and most people are struggling to hit over 3 meg lines.....as the 160 thread page in this forum attests to.

    And you were using hyperbole....here is a quote from your post :
    If You want a pay to leech service that will give decent speed and no obligation to seed back what you give then rapidshare is for you.

    if on the other hand, you want the fastest possible speeds, faster pre-times, no cost then bittorrent is for you.

    This is the definition of hyperbole mate. It almost sounds like a sales pitch.

    There IS obligation to upload with RS type services. You get free access. So that comment was wrong. You refferred to these services as "decent speed" which is nonsense, everybody using them gets their maximum possible speed on there line. You also state that BT is free where as rapidshare is not. Torrents are free for selfish and generous people equally....where as selfish people pay for rapidshare, megaupload etc. and if you seed a couple files, you get it for free.

    And I dont even know what you mean by "pre-time" to be honest. Files show up just as fast on rs as they do with torrents....and the difference is that a year later, the rs file still exists. the torrent doesn't.


  • #140
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Bittorrent was designed to give maximum speed to a high amount of users when compared to a normal web server which would likely die if massive amount of users connect to it,

    In affect the slashdot affect would kill a http/ftp server but would be of great benefit to a file shared via bitorrent

    from wikipedia:
    Advantages of P2P networks

    An important goal in P2P networks is that all clients provide resources, including bandwidth, storage space, and computing power. Thus, as nodes arrive and demand on the system increases, the total capacity of the system also increases. This is not true of a client-server architecture with a fixed set of servers, in which adding more clients could mean slower data transfer for all users.

    The distributed nature of P2P networks also increases robustness in case of failures by replicating data over multiple peers, and -- in pure P2P systems -- by enabling peers to find the data without relying on a centralized index server. In the latter case, there is no single point of failure in the system.[1]

    Whats common when it comes to people seeding content on bittorrent is for the content to be seeded from one or more deadicated server running on a 10Mbps, 100Mbps or 1000Mbps uplink and as such is able to serve the files out at very fast speeds, as more users join this only gets faster as they seed and as such is easily able to max out the vast majority of available internet connections for users.

    The long an short is bittorrent is suitable for a large file to be served to alot of users, rapidshare and the likes serve there jobs too but you have to pay for decent speeds and it may not be as fast.


  • #141
    Kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Which is why, as I previously said in another post, I respect the idea of BitTorrent in its theory format. But I just dont see these supposed great results when its put to use. It's performing a long way under its potential as is.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Kirby wrote: »
    Which is why, as I previously said in another post, I respect the idea of BitTorrent in its theory format. But I just dont see these supposed great results when its put to use. It's performing a long way under its potential as is.

    This however is not down to the protocol and instead is down to how certain users use it, the speeds are there if people use it correctly :)


  • #143
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    I'll tell you one thing, it's possible to max out any upload limit in bt, set it to no limit and you will be maxed out in seconds :)


  • #144
    Anti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,401 ✭✭✭✭Anti


    MooseJam wrote: »
    I'll tell you one thing, it's possible to max out any upload limit in bt, set it to no limit and you will be maxed out in seconds :)

    If there are poeple that want it yeah, but your client can be blocked by the tracker, same with your isp. Same for throtteling. Bitcommet and its superseeding for example.


  • #145
    Yarnhall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 93 ✭✭Yarnhall


    Couldn't see this mentioned in the thread anywhere, but, utorrent 1.8 will limit your max download speed to x10 of your upload max,
    if your max upload is limited to 3k or below i.e. (presuming only one active torrent)

    Max upload per torrent of 2k --> max download 20k
    Max upload per torrent of 3k --> max download 30k

    Set max upload to 4k to unlimit your download i.e.
    Max upload per torrent is 4K --> download at line capacity (3Mb bb would get ~330K/s)

    Check it out using any of the Ubuntu torrents, set the limit to 3k, you'll only get ~30k down,
    set the upload limit to 4k, full speed ahead Scotty!


  • #146
    corkstudent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 473 ✭✭corkstudent


    So an anyone help me get DC++ working on my Chorus 10mb connection with Netgear router...?


  • #147
    Jonathan
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 8,214 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jonathan


    corkstudent wrote: »
    So an anyone help me get DC++ working on my Chorus 10mb connection with Netgear router...?

    That is far too vague.. What have you tried. What is not working etc?


  • #148
    Nick_oliveri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Nick_oliveri


    You gotta stick in your IP everytime and make sure the relevant ports are forwarded and you are in active mode...

    For a solution to the IP annoyance you can create a profile on http://www.no-ip.com/. Have the application running in your taskbar, with the relevant noip address in revconnect.

    Edit: use revconnect.


  • #149
    delllat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭delllat


    has anyone elses torrents went to shiit since they were upgraded?

    mine were great when i was on 3 meg

    now im on 7.6 i can hardly torrent at all

    the speeds are just crawling

    have eircom started throttling torrents during peak hours?

    i noticed after midnight last night my torrents got a hell of a lot faster

    and were ok this morning but gone to **** again now

    anyone else noticed this?


  • #150
    Nick_oliveri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Nick_oliveri


    It would be best to download ubuntu or something on torrents to get the full picture on speeds. Or throw on a heap of torrents with loads of seeds and cancel them after.

    Anyway noones seeding anymore. Only decent speeds are on strict private servers.
    Did you increase your upload cap in utorrent after the upgrade? If so, this could be the throttle.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    delllat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭delllat


    i have tried downloading torrents with 15,000+ seeds and also tried increasing the upload at various intervals but it doesnt seem to be working

    my old 3 meg connection used to have the upload set at 10KB and it used to max out the line at over 300KBPS

    now at the same setting of 10KB i cant get over 120KBS

    have tried changing the upload to 20,30,40 50 and even unlimited uploads and the download speeds do not increase and sometimes even decrease

    ports are forwarded properly and working so thats not the problem


Advertisement