If your torrents are downloading too slowly and you want to improve your download speed in Azureus, you’ve come to the right place. Azureus is a bittorrent client, namely, a program you can use to download files at high rates across the internet from a variety of peers. It’s a p2p (peer to peer) filesharing program, and may get you in trouble with legal authorities (RIAA, MPAA) if you use it illegally. However, it has plenty of non-infringing uses, as well.
Today I downloaded a torrent at 1.12 MB/s:
On a regular 10 Mb/s LAN that’s the best you’re going to be able to do, but only if your bit torrent program is configured properly. There are a few things you can do to improve performance in Azureus, and here they are:
1) Uncap the Windows XP SP2 Connections Limit
Service pack 2 limited the TCP/IP stack to 10 half-open connections–there rest are queued–to reduce virus spread rate. Unfortunately, this cripples a p2p program. Open those connections with this patch: EvID4226Patch223d-en.zip. Install at your own risk, but it works great for me with the limit increased from 10 to 100 or 200. You could go as high as 500 if you wanted, but that might be overkill.
2) Setup Port Forwarding
You need a path from your p2p program to the peers, and if you’re using a home firewall, make sure you forward the port that Azureus uses to your computer. This tutorial will help you–you can find the find the Azureus port in the first Options screen:
3) Setup Advanced Network Settings
Go to Options->Connection->Advanced Network Settings. You’ll see a screen like this:
You want a lot of simultaneous connections, so set the “max simultaneous outbound connection attempts” field to something just under what you set the Windows XP connection limit to in the hack in #1. I had 100 XP connections, so I set 64 in Azureus.
4) Upload Transfer
Go to Options->Transfer. You’ll see this screen:
You should set the “global max upload speed” 100-300KB/s, so that you can spend most of your connection bandwidth on downloading, and not uploading. However, the bit torrent protocol requires you to upload, so you should not set this less than 100 KB/s unless you’re on a very slow connection.
Network status: We are experiencing problems with the network! We are working on the problem and will solve it soon.
This has been there for several days now. Meanwhile, an update on January 23rd reads:
eXeem’s network has been experiencing some problems, which is causing users to not be able to receive Nodes from the network. We are working on the bug and will if necessary release an update of the program.
With 120,460 downloads this week, it’s my guess that they just don’t have enough server power and bandwidth to support it right now, and need to work on decentralizing the application as much as possible. And, while a number of people have mentioned eXeem in their blogs, nobody really seems that excited about it!
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:12:13 -0500, Oppenheim, Matthew J wrote:
Dear Mr. Fung:
We are writing to follow up on our prior correspondence. As you know by now, we have filed suits against a number of significant BitTorrent operators. We continue this correspondence in the hope that we might resolve matters with you such that litigation is unnecessary.
This is such an obvious intimidation tactic that I’m glad ISOhunt doesn’t fall for it. “We’ve sued others… now we’ll sue you…” is not a friendly overture, and smacks of desperation.
Yes we are aware of your lawsuits. Despite the fact that I don’t live in the US and the laws MPAA follows does not apply here, it is our intention to cooperate in resolving issues you have, in a reasonable fashion.
As we have said repeatedly, a significant amount of copyright infringement is occurring as a result of your website and tracker. Apart from the knowledge you have by virtue of your day to day operation of the site and server, we have put you on notice that the infringement is occurring. The list of representative works that was attached to our notice letter was merely a sample of the infringement occurring on your site. We have requested that you stop the infringing conduct immediately. That you have automated the process of adding torrents to your website is not a defense. You have the ability to review torrents before posting them. You also have the ability to search your website and review the torrents that are already being distributed. There should be little doubt, for example, that “Ocean’s Twelve” which is a torrent offered on your site is copyrighted and should not be distributed. A copyright holder is not obliged to monitor all the websites and the servers around the world to police and protect each and every work from those who would choose to close their eyes to ongoing infringement. It is incumbent on you to distribute only those torrents that correspond to files that you know are authorized to be distributed.
You repeatedly mention the “representative” list of works, which serves only to intimidate us as a search service. If you look at the Betamax vs. Universal case, the VCR was not deemed illegal since it is capable of legal use. isohunt.com is a content agnostic search service on indexing torrent links over the net, which is very much capable of legal use. While as a service we can filter content, and that is exactly how we cooperate by filtering identified copyrighted titles, we do not have the man power to manually verify the tens of thousands of torrent links, nor is it even technically possible without a complete list of copyrighted works to filter against. Since you seem to have trouble producing a complete list, a technical difficulty I can understand, you should also understand the same difficulty we have in making your copyrighted works magically disappear… somehow. So instead of calling it a complete list, which seems unfeasible, it should be referred to as a sufficient list. Without it, we cannot help you in filtering your works in our search results.
Although you have suggested that you would like us to provide an index of copyrighted works to which you can refer regarding the torrents on your website, we simply do not find it credible that you are unable to identify as copyrighted material the many popular motion picture titles currently referenced on your website. To the extent you need further guidance, the United States Copyright Office maintains records of every motion picture and television program in the United States that has a copyright registration. Additionally, on-line databases provide information regarding who distributes motion pictures and television programs. You are already aware of at least one such source, the website imdb.com, to which you provide your users deep-links for motion pictures.
Read above. According to normal procedures of DMCA takedown, it is your responsibility to identify what maybe infringing your copyright, and then we will comply. Your notion that we should know every title MPAA owns, while you have difficulty producing such yourself, is absurd. Links to websites such as imdb.com is user submitted, while torrent links may be user submitted or indexed from other sources on the internet. We do not moderate this process, we don’t have the resource to do so and it is not our policy.
This reply is genius. I love the argument. Because the MPAA cannot produce a list of copyright works that it “owns,” ISOhunt cannot filter their search results. Because ISOhunt is automated, it can’t manually filter, by policy choice. This is quite clever, until the MPAA does produce a masterlist…
Finally, it continues to appear to be true that you have addressed the infringement of which we have put you on notice. Indeed, you have not removed those torrents that we specifically gave you notice. Your response that you should not have to undertake any action to address the ongoing infringement until we have agreed to the “arrangement” you have offered is not acceptable. You have an obligation to address the ongoing infringement. You may not offer less protection than we have a right to expect, and then condition that lesser protection on our agreeing that you should have to do nothing more.
The MPAA lawyers want immediate action and a precedent for future actions. ISOhunt wants a policy for removing copyright works, which it will then apply uniformly. Doesn’t the latter seem more sane?
It is not an arrangement, it is information necessary for us to cooperate. Unless filtering against your “representative” list is sufficient, which we then can use to filter to your satisfaction, please provide us with a list that is sufficient.
What will happen next? Who knows, but the ongoing squabble with the MPAA lawyers is beginning to become heated.