What 100MB/s+ torrent client, possibly 64bit?

[terente]

I'm looking for an alternative to uTorrent, currently running the latest from official website. Recently upgraded my internet to gigabit broadband and bought a new router to match, the wrt1900ac from Linksys.
I'm getting sustained 100-110MB/s but within minutes uTorrent crashes with error "windows ran out of memory".
My download disks are 4 Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives in RAID0 so I'm pretty sure they have plenty of speed.
For testing sake I also used my system SSD and ran into the same problem.

I'm looking for a torrent client that will allow me to set ram disk cache above 2gb, the 32bit uTorrent only allows 1800MB and if I set cache more than 1gb it will most definitely run into the "windows ran out of memory" issue mentioned.
Running with cache below 1gb overloads the disks.

Any ideas which client has the best caching techniques and which would allow the use of more than 2Gb disk cache?

System:
i7 975x @ 4GHz
12Gb DDR3
Rampage 2 Extreme
2 x Kingston 120GB RAID0
4 x Seagate Barracuda 1TB RAID0
EVGA Hydro Copper 780Ti (GPU)
Zotac GTX 480 (dedicated Physx)
Auzentech Forte 7.1
1250W Enermax PSU
Running Windows 8.1 Pro

Not that it matters but CPU, GPUs and Mobo are watercooled.

 

[G73S]

the best alernative if qBittorrent. I hung on to uTorrent as much as I could. until recently, even the manual tweaks to disable all ads don't work completely.

With regards to low memory, I never heard of a 64 bit torrent client. Did you disanle your pagefile as that's the only reason why you can get low memory errors. Don't disable it, do like I do, set it to a min size of 200 MB and a max size of 1024 MB then that error should not recur

 

[terente]

the best alernative if qBittorrent. I hung on to uTorrent as much as I could. until recently, even the manual tweaks to disable all ads don't work completely.

With regards to low memory, I never heard of a 64 bit torrent client. Did you disanle your pagefile as that's the only reason why you can get low memory errors. Don't disable it, do like I do, set it to a min size of 200 MB and a max size of 1024 MB then that error should not recur

Thanks for the reply! Pagefile is not disabled and I am not the only one having the issue. Some were able to install a beta version of 64bit uTorrent but it doesn't seem to work for me on Win8.1.
However, I did install qBittorrent and was able to download a 8gb torrent @ 104mb/s without crashing and no horrendous disk activity either! I'm impressed so far, will use qB as default for now and see how it goes. Thanks!

 

[Iron Woode]

I use Tixati and it comes in a 64bit version.

I have no idea about modifying its cache.

 

[jacktesterson]

qbittorrent is the best.

 

[MrColin]

I like transmission. If it doesn't do exactly what you want you could tweak the source and compile it yourself.

 

[AMDZen]

There is no reason to use uTorrent post 3.x

Everyone who sticks with uTorrent is still using 2.2.1

Get it from Oldversion.com or various other places. You don't need a 64 bit torrent client and 2.2.1 will always and forever be the best torrent client.

 

[code65536]

Yes, use version 2.2.1, build 25302. The last proper, moral build that actually lives up to its name. They forsaked the "μ" in v3 and later and instead churned out bloated, inefficient pieces of junk.

That having been said, μTorrent isn't linked with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, so it's limited to an address space of merely 2GiB. Unless it does something stupidly funky (like mess with the high bit of pointers), it should be safe to use editbin to flip on the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag and bump that address space up to the full 4GiB allowed for 32-bit processes.

 

[terente]

Thanks for the replies everybody!
I'm sticking with qBittorrent for now, been stressing it all day today and had no crash so far.
Download speed is how it should be and as far as I can tell the caching mechanism in qBit is as good as uTorrent's- I like it.
I'm also appreciating the clean interface and lack of ads

 

[G73S]

There is no reason to use uTorrent post 3.x

Everyone who sticks with uTorrent is still using 2.2.1

Get it from Oldversion.com or various other places. You don't need a 64 bit torrent client and 2.2.1 will always and forever be the best torrent client.

Isn't there a security risk with using such an old version? and perhaps a speed hit?

That's why I switched to qBittorrent

 

[code65536]

Isn't there a security risk with using such an old version?

That's a common myth, that somehow things magically become more insecure with age. There hasn't been any security flaws of any sort for any version of μTorrent since 2010 (back in the 2.0.x days). That last flaw from 2010 was also quite a bit of a stretch, as it involved opening a maliciously-crafted .torrent file that was located on the user's computer in the same directory as another malicious DLL file that the user had also downloaded.

The last real code execution flaw (i.e., something that didn't require quite so much contortion to exploit) was discovered back in 2008, which involved opening a maliciously-crafted .torrent file.

All of the network-related flaws discovered have been denial-of-service flaws--no RCEs.

The fact of the matter is that torrents aren't that complicated, and things like the .torrent file format are also fairly well-defined. It's also something that does not involve any sort of dynamic code execution (e.g., there's no scripting involved). It's a mature protocol on a mature client, with extremely limited attack surface. Dynamic code execution is the biggie, BTW. That, and complexity are the main breeders of security flaws, so it doesn't surprise me that vulnerabilities have been so rare and virtually non-existent.

On that note, if it comes down to trust and security, I trust 2.2.1 far more than these newer versions that are loaded with ads served up from goodness-knows-where and that have added lots of questionable bells and whistles: 3.x has a far larger attack surface than 2.x--this is a case where I think newer is likely less secure.

 

[G73S]

That's a common myth, that somehow things magically become more insecure with age. There hasn't been any security flaws of any sort for any version of μTorrent since 2010 (back in the 2.0.x days). That last flaw from 2010 was also quite a bit of a stretch, as it involved opening a maliciously-crafted .torrent file that was located on the user's computer in the same directory as another malicious DLL file that the user had also downloaded.

The last real code execution flaw (i.e., something that didn't require quite so much contortion to exploit) was discovered back in 2008, which involved opening a maliciously-crafted .torrent file.

All of the network-related flaws discovered have been denial-of-service flaws--no RCEs.

The fact of the matter is that torrents aren't that complicated, and things like the .torrent file format are also fairly well-defined. It's also something that does not involve any sort of dynamic code execution (e.g., there's no scripting involved). It's a mature protocol on a mature client, with extremely limited attack surface. Dynamic code execution is the biggie, BTW. That, and complexity are the main breeders of security flaws, so it doesn't surprise me that vulnerabilities have been so rare and virtually non-existent.

On that note, if it comes down to trust and security, I trust 2.2.1 far more than these newer versions that are loaded with ads served up from goodness-knows-where and that have added lots of questionable bells and whistles: 3.x has a far larger attack surface than 2.x--this is a case where I think newer is likely less secure.

right, so this answers the security flaw question, how about speed wise? am I losing anything in terms of speed vs using the latest qBittorrent for example?

 

[code65536]

right, so this answers the security flaw question, how about speed wise? am I losing anything in terms of speed vs using the latest qBittorrent for example?

Try it and find out?

For something like this, I expect the speed will be implementation-specific and dependent on the competency of the developers. This is not the kind of thing with fancy algorithmic sugar--it's the kind of thing where the nuts and bolts (e.g., efficient buffer sizes) would matter far more. So my guess (as someone who has never used qB) is that μTorrent, which was designed and coded for Windows using Windows APIs and created (at least initially) by highly competent people, will outperform something that was designed for Linux and that probably uses inefficient wrapper libraries. But that's just a guess loosely extrapolated from other software. Best way to know is to try it.

 

[terente]

qBittorrent has good buffers- although the maximum you can set is 999MB, there isn't any disk overloading problem such as seen in uTorrent if the buffer is set below 1024MB.
So far I'm liking it.

 

[G73S]

qBittorrent has good buffers- although the maximum you can set is 999MB, there isn't any disk overloading problem such as seen in uTorrent if the buffer is set below 1024MB.
So far I'm liking it.

did you have that issue with the older uTorrent or the new uTorrent?

 

[TheRyuu]

VM (linux) + rtorrent.

Just as an alternative suggestion.

 

[lamedude]

But if you already have Linux why would you need to torrent Linux ISOs?

 

[mikeyJo]

best and recommended is qbittorrent.

 

[Revolution 11]

There is no reason to use uTorrent post 3.x

Everyone who sticks with uTorrent is still using 2.2.1

Get it from Oldversion.com or various other places. You don't need a 64 bit torrent client and 2.2.1 will always and forever be the best torrent client.

Actually, 1.8.5 is the proper "old" version, since I have detected interface crap since that version. Works fine with all torrents and sites and no noticeable bugs or performances to date.

I will have to try qbittorrent and see how it is.

 

[terente]

did you have that issue with the older uTorrent or the new uTorrent?

It was the new version of uTorrent that was causing the problems, older versions might work fine but I didn't have a chance to test them.
Thanks to your advice I'm still using qbittorrent and didn't encounter any problems with it so far.

But if you already have Linux why would you need to torrent Linux ISOs?

There are many linux distributions out there, one needs a good torrent client to test them all