Printable View
I'm thinking of switching to this because it looks like the code is really geared towards high performance. I understand it's text-based which is fine with me as I'm used to coding on AS/400 machines (anybody heard of those).
Anyway, I'd like to hear if rTorrent really is high-performance and what kind of speeds you might be getting with it on your seedbox. I'm getting a new, higher-performing box soon after trying out the concept with an entry-level model.
:D
Merry Christmas!
haven't used it but i hear all good things about it, and it is said to be really speedy when seeding :)
ps: AS/400... those mainframes???
I use rtorrent all the time on my linux seedbox with screen. It's very easy to use, fast, and easy to customize with rtorrent.rc. No complaints whatsoever.
Yes...that's what I'm looking for. I've found some good installation guides. I'm thinking I'll use the Ubuntu Linux flavor since that seems to be the popular brand on the Internet these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by jayz707
It's IBM's 'midrange' computers that really function as mainframes. I don't know if companies really use mainframes any more. I believe the AS/400s have taken over. It would make an awesome seedbox but I would get fired...:fear:Quote:
ps: AS/400... those mainframes???
Cool...do you come pretty close to the 10M U/D as advertised?Quote:
Originally Posted by dythim
i guess debain would be a wiser choice if you are considering a OS for a seed box(which is sort of a server...), its more robust stable and speedy... anyways i guess ubuntu would be much easier to setup and such...Quote:
Originally Posted by arkiebrianYes...that's what I'm looking for. I've found some good installation guides. I'm thinking I'll use the Ubuntu Linux flavor since that seems to be the popular brand on the Internet these days.
It's IBM's 'midrange' computers that really function as mainframes. I don't know if companies really use mainframes any more. I believe the AS/400s have taken over. It would make an awesome seedbox but I would get fired...:fear:Quote:
ps: AS/400... those mainframes???
Cool...do you come pretty close to the 10M U/D as advertised?Quote:
Originally Posted by dythim
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayz707
Yeah I'm not familiar with Ubuntu...I'm using Fedora right now - it's the most stable one out there I suppose. They're all really the same just have slightly different commands depending on what you are doing anyway. I liked Suse for a long time but I've moved away from there.
Lots of help on Debian out there too. Maybe that would be a good choice.
used to use rtorrent. But I needed a good webui. There are alot of webui's out for rtorrent but they all suck big time, atleast compared to utorrent's ui.
Why do you feel you needed the webui?Quote:
Originally Posted by Submission
Web ui is very easy for use. rTorrent is more complicated but u can reach high speeds than with web ui.
From what I've been reading about it the line commands seem to be the way to go for the highest performance. I don't have an issue with this. I'm a coder dating back to the DOS daysQuote:
Originally Posted by Luchohhh
:geek:
i don't think the torrent client matters much. it is more about how the box is setup as a whole or any limiting factors a specific bt client can do that another can't. i like rtorrent but i just use azureus mainly for my home computing.
for speed reasons: a 100/100 box will max both ways on any bt client as long as it is buffered right and there is enough memory on the box for the bt client. also, if you want to up at your max 24/7 from lets say 100 different torrents then the data is split out a lot more then 1 or 2 torrents and because of this the hdd works harder and your speeds are slower. To solve this you need to to raid the hdds together or do some sort of memcache.
on a gigabit box to get speeds higher then around 50MB/s you will need to raid the hdds together. Ideal is best to have a min of 4 hdds in a raid 10 to get max speeds on bt contently or just mem cache and don't seed more then 4gigs of torrents at once.
it isn't a problem with the client but more how fast hard drives move and how the bt protocol works. it grabs small little chunks from all over the hard drive constantly and this works any hard drive at its max before the line maxes out especially on a gigabit. this is why gigabit is most likely not worth it for bt, but in other protocols provides a significant advantage.
er my point is it doesn't matter if you use rtorrent or another client. as long as the hardware has enough memory you should get the exact same speeds.
yeah try using bittornado first and then rtorrent. Gargantuan difference.
Well, I'm thinking my current machine just doesn't have enough punch. It's a PIII and only 256 RAM and I'm running BitTornado with Torrentflux but I only manage to get speeds of up to about 3.2 up and down when I should be getting more, as advertised. TF doesn't have a whole lot of customizable settings unless I go in there and hack the code but I haven't had the time to do that. rTorrent looks like it's more 'open' to customization.
nice explanationQuote:
Originally Posted by DanielleD87
Ppl use rtorrent because it's suitable for a low resorces system, no anyone could buy a high spec dedicated, for a budget around 30-50 Euros and getting a low end dedicated server, ppl would choose Linux and rtorrent as it would be the best choice.
My experience with VPS running Windows with 512MB RAM, the utorrent max download is only on 5MB/s, higher than that would cause utorrent to close itself.
For home use and the speed of 1.7MB/s, I still choose Azureus, because don't have utorrent for Mac OS
def go with rtorrent.Quote:
Originally Posted by arkiebrian
Thanks for all the info guys!