Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's up with Deluge UP Speeds?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's up with Deluge UP Speeds?

    My upload speeds were pretty good for a couple of minutes before it dropped drastically (2.5mbps to 100kbps) , According to my ISP I'm supposed to be getting 6mbps+ and I checked on Speedtest too, my speeds were perfectly normal.

  • #2
    Did you try another torrent client to see what speeds you get there?

    Also constantly maxing out upload speeds on a torrent usually does not happen. It needs lots of people downloading for you to be uploading at max, and even then after there are a lot of seeders the upload gets distributed so you won't see your upload speed maxed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by achls View Post
      Did you try another torrent client to see what speeds you get there?

      Also constantly maxing out upload speeds on a torrent usually does not happen. It needs lots of people downloading for you to be uploading at max, and even then after there are a lot of seeders the upload gets distributed so you won't see your upload speed maxed.
      Nope but I was the one who uploaded it and there were like 11 leechers and I was the only seeder at one point and it still didn't max out, I guess it was because the content started distributing from the other peoples already downloaded parts. I'll try another client and see what happens.

      Also R.I.P George Carlin, he was one of the best comedians I've ever heard.

      Edit: I just remembered that I used to use utorrent back in the day and I remembered why I quit using it, no matter how high I set the priority on a certain file in a torrent it never gave it proper priority and I D/L a lot of full TV Series which everyone knows needs proper bandwidth allocation to download the first episode or the first season quickly. Deluge does it right, I have yet to find any comments about other Clients pertaining to the priority bandwidth allocation so I didn't use any other Client.
      Last edited by Featherweight; August 4, 2015, 01:28 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yep if you're only on 6mbps, on most trackers you'll be maxing out your upload only until you've seeded a single complete copy of the file and then the seedboxes will take over and you won't get much else, unfortunately. Did you notice if it happened before or after you'd seeded a complete copy?

        Comment


        • #5
          I think you should try another client for testing.. It happen to my deluge before when i was seeding a lot of torrents
          I used to think that today would never come

          Comment


          • #6
            Having high upload speeds like 100mbps and up definitely puts you at an advantage but you should be able to do just fine with 6mbps. It will, however, require more time and effort put in if you want a good buffer on your sites. Patience is key.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think maybe some Clarification is needed, my internet plan is 50/50 but my real time D/L and U/L speeds are around 6-7 mbps most of the time but Deluge didn't even max out my U/L speed before dropping (it was around 2-2.5mbps like I said) to 100kbps or less, does this mean that seedboxes always get priority on torrents? even when you upload them?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Featherweight View Post
                I think maybe some Clarification is needed, my internet plan is 50/50 but my real time D/L and U/L speeds are around 6-7 mbps most of the time but Deluge didn't even max out my U/L speed before dropping (it was around 2-2.5mbps like I said) to 100kbps or less, does this mean that seedboxes always get priority on torrents? even when you upload them?
                Yes, faster connections get priority. Whether you're the original uploader or not makes no difference to priorities once a copy of the file is in the swarm. Until then, you're the only one with the data so obviously you will be prioritised, but after that the faster connections will take over unless there's a bigger demand for the file than those faster connections can provide (unlikely on a private tracker), in which case you might see some more upload.

                Assuming nothing else was using your bandwidth, as I said, it should probably have maxed out your upload speed until you hit 1.0. You could try a different client, but to be honest, it doesn't make that much difference, as you're always going to be uploading 1 full copy and not a lot more with a connection like yours, so it doesn't really matter how fast that happens. I'd personally stick with Deluge just for convenience - the fact is, it's a well-respected and widely used client and it's more likely that the slower speed was a problem elsewhere. It has a lot of things going for it - it's my favourite client.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Coal View Post
                  Yes, faster connections get priority. Whether you're the original uploader or not makes no difference to priorities once a copy of the file is in the swarm. Until then, you're the only one with the data so obviously you will be prioritised, but after that the faster connections will take over unless there's a bigger demand for the file than those faster connections can provide (unlikely on a private tracker), in which case you might see some more upload.

                  Assuming nothing else was using your bandwidth, as I said, it should probably have maxed out your upload speed until you hit 1.0. You could try a different client, but to be honest, it doesn't make that much difference, as you're always going to be uploading 1 full copy and not a lot more with a connection like yours, so it doesn't really matter how fast that happens. I'd personally stick with Deluge just for convenience - the fact is, it's a well-respected and widely used client and it's more likely that the slower speed was a problem elsewhere. It has a lot of things going for it - it's my favourite client.
                  That is a horrible priority system but at least I know what's going on now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Featherweight View Post
                    That is a horrible priority system but at least I know what's going on now.
                    Torrents are designed to give the best speeds for everyone and it's easier to just max out the connections of people who have the highest speeds first. But people with slower speeds definitely will see some upload activity, though they are less likely to max out their connections. Not much you can do about it except maybe getting a faster connection.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Featherweight View Post
                      That is a horrible priority system but at least I know what's going on now.
                      What [MENTION=166636]achls[/MENTION] said. It's actually a very good system, because each connection from a leecher to a seeder requires an overhead, so if the download can be done with as few connections to as few seeders as possible, that's the most efficient use of bandwidth.

                      Also, when you consider that one of the main reasons Bittorrent was invented was to save the bandwidth of the people distributing the files (i.e. an alternative solution to them putting it on a server and allowing people to download it via HTTP or FTP), it would make even less sense for their connections to be prioritised.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by achls View Post
                        Torrents are designed to give the best speeds for everyone and it's easier to just max out the connections of people who have the highest speeds first. But people with slower speeds definitely will see some upload activity, though they are less likely to max out their connections. Not much you can do about it except maybe getting a faster connection.
                        Originally posted by Coal View Post
                        What @achls said. It's actually a very good system, because each connection from a leecher to a seeder requires an overhead, so if the download can be done with as few connections to as few seeders as possible, that's the most efficient use of bandwidth.

                        Also, when you consider that one of the main reasons Bittorrent was invented was to save the bandwidth of the people distributing the files (i.e. an alternative solution to them putting it on a server and allowing people to download it via HTTP or FTP), it would make even less sense for their connections to be prioritised.
                        It's easy to see why Bittorrent prioritizes faster connections now but still I think the bandwidth allocation should change depending on the situation at least so the guy who took all that time and put in that work to upload stuff can get some type of fair share and not get all the bandwidth hogged by someone who uses his pops seedbox or something (no offense to seedbox users) and ends up uploading more than the guy who uploaded the torrent in the first place. Essentially it's a means of file sharing so I don't really have a problem with it but it just seems like an iffy system.

                        Bandwidth allocations are definitely a concern for some people, I know that much, I wish there was some type of way to specify the amount of bandwidth we want to give at a constant rate or over a period of time so it would be more balanced.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Featherweight View Post
                          It's easy to see why Bittorrent prioritizes faster connections now but still I think the bandwidth allocation should change depending on the situation at least so the guy who took all that time and put in that work to upload stuff can get some type of fair share and not get all the bandwidth hogged by someone who uses his pops seedbox or something (no offense to seedbox users) and ends up uploading more than the guy who uploaded the torrent in the first place. Essentially it's a means of file sharing so I don't really have a problem with it but it just seems like an iffy system.

                          Bandwidth allocations are definitely a concern for some people, I know that much, I wish there was some type of way to specify the amount of bandwidth we want to give at a constant rate or over a period of time so it would be more balanced.
                          That is just wishful thinking though, and the way torrenting works is unlikely to change so we have to work with what we've got.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by achls View Post
                            That is just wishful thinking though, and the way torrenting works is unlikely to change so we have to work with what we've got.
                            Yea I'm not expecting it to get adopted, I was just replying to Coal because he said it was a good system.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X