Transmission

Have you made sure that no other peer can actually utilize that upload bandwidth "better" than the one who is not letting you download? If not made sure, or more importantly, no other peer can make "better" use of it then I see no reason to let that one have the "left over" bandwidth so it can ...

As a famous Canadian Prime Minister once said: Fuddle Duddle! :lol:


That applies to you more than me. Please take your own advice. I already asked you politely to refrain from posting about things that you do not understand in my thread. It just lowers the SNR and makes people who do know what ...

Since you are an expert, write your own code! :idea: I am totally uninterested in your lectures. :roll:

I'm not even close to an expert, all of what I have written is extremely basic bittorrent functionality. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of bittorrent should already know it, and not ...

make changes as you wish or even rewrite it completely.

Methinks thou dost protest too much, joewill! If you think you have a logical case for a better algorithm, then open a trac ticket. Otherwise, stop annoying everybody that tries to help you. :x

If the people who were trying to help me knew ...

joewill you forget that when you joing a swarm you start with nothing. Meaning that if we took your suggestion it would be next to impossible for you to get any parts since other peers with parts would be favoring each other and would keep you from being able to get into any of their download slots ...

(I've watched some for more than 5 minutes)

For example, you could shorten this by changing "MAX_UPLOAD_IDLE_SECS = ( 60 * 5 ),"

That's not the problem. There are plenty of peers, and the ones I am watching are not idle, I am uploading to them, but they are not allowing me to download. It is ...

Since this thread started by raising the issue of Transmission's use of the tit-for-tat scheme, here is a quote straight from the horse's mouth.

"It might make more sense to use tit-for-tat more strictly than we
currently do, but leaving it up to the users to micromanage peers is not
the right ...

So let me get this straight? You want to limit the upload speed to peers that don't allow download to the same peer and you say that that will make the cloud more "healthy"?


I'm not sure who you are quoting ("healthy"), but yes, the ones that have parts that I need, and that I am uploading to ...

x190 wrote:

Every torrent has at least one seeder

On which planet?

Earth.

How do you think a torrent gets started without a seeder who has 100% of the torrent?

Theoretically, I suppose you could start with, say 10 peers who each have a different 10% of the torrent, but I have never seen that done.

Again your comment confuses me.

The peers downloading from you do not nessarily have any parts of the download you are downloading, try could just be starting. Thus they will not share what they done have.


You certainly are confused, I'll give you that. Most of everything else you wrote is ...

As far as speed in many parts of the world connections are sold asymmetric, ie upload speed is low, but download is high.
Locally for me it is common to see a 20mbit download but only 0.5 mbit up.


Everyone knows that, and it is irrelevant to my question of throttling or blocking peers that ...

Each client typically has a upload limit and slots that limit how many others can download at once, this will always fill up and who is download changes over time... You can just suddenly expect other peers to give you bandwidth.

That does not really make any sense. Could you please say again ...

How can you be sure they actually have free slots for you or any data that you don't already have?

They definitely have data I do not already have, since I have seen it happen when I have, say, 5% of the torrent, and they have 75%.

As for free slots, that is irrelevant. If they will not allocate ...

When I am downloading a torrent (DL not yet complete), I often see in the peer list for the torrent peers that I am uploading to, but have a "d" indicating that they will not allow me to DL from them. I had previously thought that Transmission might let that go on for a short time, but eventually ...

I had the "seeding stops after an hour...restarting the program restarts seeding for an hour and then seeding stops again" problem with v2.31, so I had downgraded to 2.22 and everything was fine again.

But I saw that 2.32 was available, and it ends in a nice 2, just like 2.22 :D , so I tried 2.32 ...