BitTorrent - some questions

Arjun · November 2004

Ok, I've heard quite a bit about BitTorrent now and have read up some stuff on it, but I still need some answers on this one. Since many specchums seem to be using it I thought I might get some relevant replies here:

1) How well does BitTorrent work for low bandwidth users? Like say someone on Dial-up. (Me!)

2) Just how different (better?) is it from P2P like Kazaa? I understand the sharing model, but I'd like to know if it actually works as advertised or are the gains marginal?

3) Which Windows BitTorrent client would you guys recommend (assuming a dial-up user can use it)?

stupidget · November 2004

This is the one I use

http://azureus.sourceforge.net/

Very similar to eDonkey and very userer friendly.

Go to a BitTorrent sight, select the file, save and it automatically get added to Azureus. Work similar to eDonkey where you d/l segments from seeds and pier servers.

Dunny · November 2004

In my experience, whereas eMule will happily hang around for days doing nothing, and then start up downloading at around 2k/sec (and I'm on broadband with a HighID), BitTorrent will download at >30k/sec almost immediately.

D.

cyborg · November 2004

That is simply because of the nature of the network - try a torrent that isn't popular and you'll get the same waiting as you would with eMule if there are few sources available. Neither one is inherently better - it's just that the way people use torrents is generally to all hop onto the most recently released ones. Many users = faster downloads. I tried some older torrents and literally nothing would happen for ages.

The Starglider · November 2004

Bittorrents are great - although really best for broadband users as you generally don't get small files on them (like individual songs etc...)

I use Torrentstorm for my downloading needs. Very easy to use, and loads of features.

mel the bell · November 2004

i dont really like torrents tbh
most ive tried dont start, get client errors, slow downloads (im on dial up) and i hate having no user interface to throttle, stop, start downloads, search, save to etc

ive tried using bittorrent a few times and im currently downloading the imagine docu dunny posted which should take about 6 hours to complete, its the first one thats even got close to halfway, im on 57% at the moment.

i try torrent for these retro goodies not readily available on other networks but tbh im gonna stuck to my old friend winmx :) i can do a lot more with the interface.

Jon Needle · November 2004

6 hours? Took about 25 mins here using Azureus :)

Better go get broadband Mel yer tight arse ;)

Jon.

Sadako · November 2004

On 2004-11-09 19:00, Arjun wrote:

3) Which Windows BitTorrent client would you guys recommend (assuming a dial-up user can use it)?

I've only tried BT Shadow's Experimental and I still use it but now there's BitTornado. It does work well for me. Alot of people like Azureus. I'd say give some a try and see what works best for you. You may have seen this already but in case not check it out;

http://www.halm.us/bthq/clients.html

Cyborg is right. So if you are looking for something in particular which was released through torrenting and it's not being seeded anymore, you can often times find it being shared after on emule/etc. Sometimes if the demand is high enough it will be torrented again so check out the torrent sites.

In my opinion Kazaa is almost worthless. I find it's better than Torrents, and probably emule, for Music mp3s and "maybe" some of the most common programs, but that's about it.

Collie · November 2004

Because of the whole way Bittorrent works, and that you are supposed to equally share what you download, half of your tiny bandwidth will be taken up by uploading. Unless you opt not to upload which isn't nice. In short - it won't be the fastest download source you find.

I use Azureus which is a very nice Bittorrent client, although the latest update is either buggy or hasn't installed right on my machine. The menus are messed up.

mister_benn · November 2004

I read the other day that BitTorrent now accounts for a third of all bandwidth use on the whole on the tinternet.

I've been using for a year or two now and I only ever go back to K or Ed when I really want a rare file.

BT is best designed for getting the latest thing as quickly as possible. Anything older than a week is a dead torrent basically so you have to keep a finger in the pie and make sure you don't miss anything.

As a user of Napster, then Scour, then Kazaa, then Edonkey then Emule I can honestly say for speed nothing remotely beats BT for leeching off the net.

Oh and since it forces everyone [in theory] to upload it's the fairest.

Oh and since in order to find out who's downloading the files you have to start downloading the files its pretty well defended from the authorities. After all if they know your IP address, then the only way they found out is by getting in the queue themselves! :D

It's quite ingenious and I do believe so clever it should be banned!

The Starglider · November 2004

On 2004-11-10 00:36, Collie wrote:
Because of the whole way Bittorrent works, and that you are supposed to equally share what you download, half of your tiny bandwidth will be taken up by uploading. Unless you opt not to upload which isn't nice. In short - it won't be the fastest download source you find.

I totally disagree. On my copy of torrentstorm I limit my upload rate to 3K per sec and it's had no effect whatsoever to the download speed of my torrents. As long as there are Seeds and peers I get my usual 55k per sec (approx) download speed.

Arjun · November 2004

Thanks for the answers folks! I'm currently checking out a couple of clients. I have a couple of other q's though:

1) I have Sygate firewall installed. Will it interfere with BitTorrent? If so, how do I work around it without compromising on security?

2) What on earth is seeding (fnar!)?

VincentAC · November 2004

1) Sygate does not affect BitTorrent (the original client, I don't know about the others) as long as you let it have access.

2) seeding is a user who has finished downloading the file and is only uploading it. If you leave your BT client open after it's finished downloading something you are a seeder.

Simple stuff really :)

mel the bell · November 2004

On 2004-11-10 00:13, Jon Needle wrote:
6 hours? Took about 25 mins here using Azureus :)

Better go get broadband Mel yer tight arse ;)

Jon.

COS THERE IS NO BROADBAND ROUND HERE :)
or cable for that matter
so its not a case of tightarse, its a case of desperate for BB but gotta wait till march till BT should be upgrading the exchanges

Sharopolis · November 2004

On 2004-11-10 18:44, mel the bell wrote:

On 2004-11-10 00:13, Jon Needle wrote:
6 hours? Took about 25 mins here using Azureus :)

Better go get broadband Mel yer tight arse ;)

Jon.

COS THERE IS NO BROADBAND ROUND HERE :)
or cable for that matter
so its not a case of tightarse, its a case of desperate for BB but gotta wait till march till BT should be upgrading the exchanges

Well thats Yorkshire for you. We've had Broadband here in Lancashire for ages. ;)
Appaerently in the depths of Yorkshire it's only recently that Dialup has become available, folks used to have to post stacks of punchcards to their ISP or send packets via semaphore to leeds where they could the whistled into a phone.

mel the bell · November 2004

not so much yorkshire, just ...........the small villages round this bit :p
some still cant get channel 5, no broadband, no cable and were just getting gas installed round here :)

Lee Fogarty · November 2004

No channel 5? You lucky bast..

Do they have running water in your area?

mel the bell · November 2004

yup, but the electric cuts out at the slightest sign of bad weather :p

fancy a holiday here?

CKay · November 2004

There`s a village near where I live, and swear to god, ten years ago whilst passing through on mah bike, 90 percent of the houses didn`t have a TV arial, yet loads of them had MASSIVE CB arials...

There were old mid 80`s tins of beans in the window of their only shop.

I peddled very fast...

I`d say what it`s called but someone`l come on and say, Hey, you Bast, I live there, he hee.

Collie · November 2004

On 2004-11-10 09:08, The Starglider wrote:

On 2004-11-10 00:36, Collie wrote:
Because of the whole way Bittorrent works, and that you are supposed to equally share what you download, half of your tiny bandwidth will be taken up by uploading. Unless you opt not to upload which isn't nice. In short - it won't be the fastest download source you find.

I totally disagree. On my copy of torrentstorm I limit my upload rate to 3K per sec and it's had no effect whatsoever to the download speed of my torrents. As long as there are Seeds and peers I get my usual 55k per sec (approx) download speed.

You've missed the entire point of my post. The point of BitTorrent is to GIVE as much as you TAKE. If you download 100 megabytes, you give back a 100 megabytes, or as much as you can manage. The best way to do this is to upload and share as you're downloading, by allowing as much upstream as possible to be given. With my 512kbps broadband, I have a 58K download to 27K upload limit. Thus after downloading I still have a long wait to upload. As any Bittorrent sharing site will tell you, you should aim for a 1:1 sharing ratio so the service doesn't suffer.

I'm not saying if you choose to be selfish and download at 55k/sec and upload at just 3K/sec you won't get the same fast download speeds, just ideally you give back as much as possible. As the original poster has a mere dialup modem (with probably 5K bandwidth), ideally he would be sharing some of that bandwidth towards uploading, thus his downloads wouldn't be as fast as could be found with certain other mediums - thus Bittorrent isn't ideal.

I sincerely hope although you are downloading many times faster than you're uploading that you are still giving back as much as you download. One of the most annoying things on BitTorrent is when you are seeding and spend ages making sure someone finishes their downloading so you can go - and they just log off straight away when there's another 30 people waiting to complete the download.

b00mzi11a · November 2004

You're a bit wrong there mate - Modems have synchronous transfer - so you can still upload (on v90 at 32kbps i think, or is it 24? anyway!) at the same time as getting your theoretical 56k downstream - if you saturate the upstream then it does make things a bit slower, because packets can't SYN and ACK. But the prinipal is no different for dial-up users, and therefore it should make no noticable impact on the speed in comparison to other methods of downloading.

Collie · November 2004

Interesting. But what about older modems? I can remember from the 7 years of slow dialup I had to put up with, it was really a case of either downloading or uploading. Crikey it was excruiating at times doing anything!

Anyway, whatever the speeds, people should make sure they're still sharing as much as downloading. I can't understand why Starglider has limited upload to just 3K??

b00mzi11a · November 2004

It's only later protocols that support synchronous transfer (V34 and upwards since around '96-ish at a guess).

I totally agree with you - people should leave the upload as open as possible on torrents, otherwise the whole thing's a bit pointless. Fortunately lots of torrent sites now disable your download if you sit about leeching.

Arjun · November 2004

All right. I'm using Azureus to download the Imagine documentary. 25% done. I'm getting an average speed of 6-7 kbps with the lowest being 3kbps and high of 12 (not very often). For a dial-up modem I suppose that's reasonable.

EDIT: As a test, I've made my Sinclair QL games folder a "shared contents folder". Is this the right way to go about making stuff available to other people? Or is there a better way?
_________________
"48K ought to be enough for anyone!"
- Sir Clive Sinclair

[ This Message was edited by: Arjun on 2004-11-12 19:01 ]

The Starglider · November 2004

No, you have to make little "torrent" files, which you would then use as links in a website. These files are tiny, but hold all the information required by a torrent Client to download.

I won't go into it, since there are a stack of websites you could google to find out how to do it exactly, but that's the most basic explanation I can come up with.

BitTorrent - some questions

Comments