Whirlpool

Does uploading a torrent contribute to you quota, I believe all uploads are free. Today I've downloaded about 450mb however mum states it's more like 609. The only thing i can contribute is if i'm uploading if it's causing to be counted.

uploads dont count . It could be that you have done some free unmetered content which hasnt been subtracted back off yet .
Cheers

uploads don't count but torrents tend to download much more than the files you're getting

all that uploading has to be acknowledged (which actually means you're downloading the acks)

Khtulu writes...

Does uploading a torrent contribute to you quota, I believe all uploads are free. Today I've downloaded about 450mb however mum states it's more like 609. The only thing i can contribute is if i'm uploading if it's causing to be counted.

Uploads are not counted.

But every upload packet, requires a smaller download packet to confirm its arrived.

So you upload 10 packets (at 10bytes a packet), you'll download 10 packets (at 1 byte a packet)*

So this is why you see more usage, due to uploads creating downloads in the process, its how its always worked on TCP/IP.

*this is not technically perfect, actual values are different, its just for a better description

Khtulu writes...

Today I've downloaded about 450mb however mum states it's more like 609. The only thing i can contribute is if i'm uploading if it's causing to be counted.

Uploaded data isn't counted, downstream traffic (Like ACKs and SYNs) generated by uploading is counted.

Also if you managed to unluckily get a few corrupt pieces your client will have automatically re-downloaded those parts meaning that your overall download size will be bigger than the actual file.

Uploads are not counted, but if you are uploading, you are also receiving ACK packets in return - these *are* counted and if you have uploaded a lot, it is certainly possible that you received 150mb or so of ACK packets. There are also numerous other reasons that could cause the discrepancy.

Ian

Nick writes...

uploads don't count but torrents tend to download much more than the files you're getting

this is probably the most likely case .

Best suggestion I have is to give Torrents a miss and start using Usenet. You wouldn't have to worry about ratios, uploading, seeding, slow transfer speeds, etc.

I can help you with Usenet if you want to give it a go (whim me if interested)

There is a s/load of overhead when it comes to using a BT client. Not only do you have to add in ACK's and SYN's but there is also a tonne of control data required for client to function. ie. the client receives (downloads) all the data required to I/C/S.

I remember Azureus has something where you can view all this data, and there's quite a bit of communication between all the clients.

what is the hash fail ratio?

other day i downloaded one 800 Mb files where 67 MB discarded due to hash fail..

Edit
How many MB op lost due to hash fail?

BTW thanks reaper. Sorry for incomplete question...

jaja23 writes...

what is the hash fail ratio?

Bad parts that failed the hash check. Every file has a hash which each piece is checked against to keep file integrity. If they didn't discard those pieces that fail hash checking then you'd end up with a unusable file.

Many anti-filesharing groups inject bad pieces to poison the torrent, public trackers and DHT are highly susceptible to this.

Also as noted above you do download while uploading, I can download a few hundred MB each day just from uploading via BitTorrent. A better solution if you don't like that idea is to use the premium news server.

Reaper writes...

A better solution if you don't like that idea is to use the premium news server.

Ah but then you're not spreading the love! I often download things off Usenet then import them and seed anyway — helps with the ratios ;-)

Lloydo writes...

often download things off Usenet

Which newsgroups? From what Ive seen files broken down in rar format and tend to always have some missing

ZeD writes...

Which newsgroups? From what Ive seen files broken down in rar format and tend to always have some missing

thats why we have .par files, isn't it? you can use quickpar to repair .rar files.

Also i spend nearly 30 GB in usenet files downloading.. :)

I don't really know a whole lot about newsgroups, I just found some sites (e.g. nzbsrus.com, binsearch.info) that give out NZB files which you just download like Torrents, put them into your Usenet downloader (e.g. GrabIt) and it downloads each individual RAR file. I then scan the SFV or PAR2 file with QuickPar and it tells me whether the RAR is complete... if it isn't then I download some PAR2 files and repair the archive, finally extracting the video using WinRAR.

I do understand torrents download more with hash fails & the likes but even so there shouldn't be such a discrepancy, i guess my real question/concern is that mum is plucking bullshit out of thin air & saying that i've downloaded much more than i have. Today for instance i have downloaded around 700mb but mum states it's over a gig. Now go on flame me for not understanding that mum just updates of the internode & it may not be accurate. I understand all this. What I don't understand is the discrepancy. There were periods where I was downloading 500mb & one day mum would say 5gb remaining the very next day 3gb. No one is "hacking into my computer" via wireless as it is firewalled. Should I just put up with the fact that it is not reporting correctly?

Khtulu writes...

I do understand torrents download more with hash fails & the likes but even so there shouldn't be such a discrepancy

Not all traffic shows, there are a lot of overheads for the protocol that are above and beyond what shows as downloaded/uploaded in the torrent program.

No one is "hacking into my computer" via wireless as it is firewalled.

how secure is your wireless?

Reaper writes...

how secure is your wireless?

Maybe I'm daft, but I'm going to ask anyway. What exactly do you mean? If I've enabled wep or wpa on the router is that not enough?

I agree overheads shouldn't have a 30% impact like you are saying. I'm not sure you'll get the answer here either (certainly not from me) so if it bothers you enough try asking Internode support about it. Sorry for bringing the conversation off-topic earlier.

Khtulu writes...

What I don't understand is the discrepancy. There were periods where I was downloading 500mb & one day mum would say 5gb remaining the very next day 3gb.

I do this to my teens almost everyday. The reason I put down to their constant use of forums that allow huge signatures and large animated avatars. They really annoy me and the kids just don't accept how greedy they can be.

OOPS, I just realised that you were talking about MuM and not mum(my).

Khtulu writes...

What exactly do you mean? If I've enabled wep or wpa on the router is that not enough?

Depends on what you're using. WEP is useless. WPA/WPA2/WPA-PSK are ok provided you are using a very strong random password (not one that can be beaten in a dictionary attack).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that due to a decision by Telstra way back in the early days, in in Australia 1MB is *not* 1MB. All ISPs in Australia use metric MB where 1mb = 1000k rather than the real figure of 1024k. So if you see a 100mb file you want to download, it will most likely be real MB values - when you download this you are automatically going to clock up 124mb in downloads.

So 450mb file = 550mb approx, plus overheads (Ack signals as mentioned earlier, hash fails etc). This would probably explain your 609mb figure.

iccoffee writes...

I seem to remember reading somewhere that due to a decision by Telstra way back in the early days, in in Australia 1MB is *not* 1MB. All ISPs in Australia use metric MB where 1mb = 1000k rather than the real figure of 1024k. So if you see a 100mb file you want to download, it will most likely be real MB values - when you download this you are automatically going to clock up 124mb in downloads.

So 450mb file = 550mb approx, plus overheads (Ack signals as mentioned earlier, hash fails etc). This would probably explain your 609mb figure.

Incorrect.

While ISP's comms links may deal in 1k=1000 and 1M=1,000,000 that has no effect on the file sizes you see on the net etc.

The filesize you are shown by a site you are downloading from, is entirely dependant upoin how the site provides that detail. It cant be affected by your ISP.

Knyghtlorde writes...

The filesize you are shown by a site you are downloading from, is entirely dependant upoin how the site provides that detail. It cant be affected by your ISP.

If I have a torrent on my PC which displays as 350mb, I know that that is 'real' megabytes. I'm assuming that when that is uploaded to a tracker site, and the size is displayed, that that size would reflect what is on my hard drive (which after all is where its going to be downloaded from if I'm the original seeder).

So my point is that the OP is seeing a file that is 450mb and is surprised when he is 'charged' for downloading 609mb. In reality though that 450mb file under windows is 550mb when using the ISP calculations for your quota usage.

iccoffee writes...

In reality though that 450mb file under windows is 550mb when using the ISP calculations for your quota usage.

Well actually its is 471.8592 not 550. The diference between GB is worse 1 Gigabyte=1.073741824 ISP GB

Just out of interest for myself, and because I had just been migrated so I wanted to see the effect the increased speed would have on p2p, I downloaded a very popular torrent yesterday afternoon. The original file was 349MB and by the time I finished downloading once and uploading 4x, I had downloaded 750MB. I assume that the number of peers (which in this case was obviously maxxed out) will affect the download greatly as they all scramble to get the pieces they require.

iccoffee writes...

So my point is that the OP is seeing a file that is 450mb and is surprised when he is 'charged' for downloading 609mb. In reality though that 450mb file under windows is 550mb when using the ISP calculations for your quota usage.

Ahhhh now I see what your saying.

The calculation is a little out though :)

Knyghtlorde writes...

The calculation is a little out though :)

Yeah well.. math I was a LOOOOONNNGGG time ago for me! :-) I'm more of the big picture man and leave the details for others! :-)

Mollie writes...

use of forums that allow huge signatures and large animated avatars.

haha... my fiance reads a lot of pregnancy boards and wow, they have like 6-10 animated sigs PER post..... no joke some people even have linked video's playing in there signature... lol

I had to setup a proxy server at my home to stop her using 50-60mb a day just browsing a handful of threads!

The worst thing is a lot of them are 'tickers' which are dynamically generated and not cached -_-.

Khtulu writes...

What exactly do you mean? If I've enabled wep or wpa on the router is that not enough?

WEP = dont bother
WPA = depends on the key and how long it is