how to control upload data in bittorrent clients
rwmaillists at googlemail.com
Sun Feb 7 20:01:20 UTC 2010
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:31:11 +0100
Morgan Wesström <freebsd-questions at pp.dyndns.biz> wrote:
> RW wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:51:20 +0100
> > Morgan Wesström <freebsd-questions at pp.dyndns.biz> wrote:
> >> RW wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:14:45 +0100
> >>> Morgan Wesström <freebsd-questions at pp.dyndns.biz> wrote:
> >>>>> 1) in the transmission web it showing downloading is 10
> >>>>> kbps to 30 kbps but uploading it shows 50 to 92 kbps my
> >>>>> question is is it possible to limit the uploading data rate ,
> >>>>> how can I do this ?
> >>>> Check out Daniel Hartmeier's excellent article on how to
> >>>> prioritize TCP ACKs (and other traffic). It will explain what
> >>>> you experience and solve the problem for you.
> >>> It's a good idea to handle this from within transmission too.
> >>> Rate limiting works best at the TCP level.
> >> Well, the thing is that if you prioritize your TCP ACKs you won't
> >> have to do any rate limiting within transmission. You can then use
> >> your full upload and download simultaneously. Don't you want to
> >> use the bandwidth you pay for? :-)
> > You can't get the full bandwidth because you need to set the upload
> > limit at a level that can be sustained upstream in your router or
> > modem; otherwise it doesn't work properly. You can't just use your
> > nominal line-speed or let altq pick-up the interface speed.
> You're of course correct. I'm sorry if I didn't specify that but
> Daniel's article clearly explains it. The purpose of my response here
> was not to describe in detail how to configure ALTQ but merely to
> direct the OP to a solution that solves the exact problem he
> describes. This phenomenon is very common among people with
> asymmetric connections.
> > It depends what you are trying achieve. If your sole object is to
> > prevent ack delays reducing tcp download speed then altq will do it.
> > However, if you want to seed afterwards you need to reduce the
> > impact on latency-sensitive protocols like http and imap. Further
> > traffic prioritization does help, but I find that I get better
> > results if I also set the client to limit itself a bit below the
> > altq limit.
> My personal queue definition is rather complex. Naturally I prioritize
> traffic like http, smtp, ssh, rsync, ntp and others over the bulk
> traffic produced by bittorrent. Since bandwidth can be borrowed
> between queues the bulk traffic is able to use all of my bandwidth
> when I don't need it for prioritized traffic.
I'm aware of that, and do it, but in practice I find that latency is
still improved. YMMV
> > In my experience tcp limiting also produces steadier uploads than
> > altq so the average rate can actually be higher.
> I have probably been lucky with the ISPs I've used over the years
> because they have always delivered a constant and steady upload to
It's nothing to do with the ISP, the ISP's the same in both cases.
My guess is that ktorrent's limiting tends to spread the uploads more
evenly among the peers.
> I set up my first PF/ALTQ-based router on OpenBSD, several years
> before it was ported to FreeBSD, and I have never looked back since
> then. No amount of application speed limiting has ever come close to
> produce better bandwidth utilization for me than PF/ALTQ.
It's the best of a bad lot, dropping and delaying IP packets is a poor
way of regulating TCP.
More information about the freebsd-questions