1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How effective is QOS for Bit Torrent ?

Discussion in 'Networking Issues' started by davexnet, Mar 17, 2007.

  1. davexnet

    davexnet LI Guru Member

    Something occurred to me - I use utorrent, and you specify in the config
    settings the port number you want to use for the incoming sessions.
    This is then port forwarded in the router and all is well.

    But what about qos ? You can set a rule with port number referred to above
    and set it to "low", but utorrent (and probably all other torrent clients)
    is using loads of unspecified ports for it's initiated connections - and these
    unknown ports are not defined to the router at all. It's only a qos issue.
    utorrent is working fine.

    How does QOS help in this case? All the connections initiated by the
    the client get the default priority, what ever that is.

    Thanks,
    Dave
     
  2. frenchy2k1

    frenchy2k1 LI Guru Member

    QoS is not so much about the number of connections (that dont slow down anything) as about prioritizing traffic (especially upload).
    Most protocols can easilly be identified (they are named and include such an ID in the packet) which allow the router to determine what to do with it.

    The problem for QoS and bittorent is more when you start turning encription ON. When you do, and when you use random ports, the router cannot separate the bittorent traffic from other traffic. In that case, the "default rule" would apply. A solution is to make the default slower and boost the applications that need it (html/mail/messenger...).
     
  3. davexnet

    davexnet LI Guru Member

    Thanks for the info. This was my concern when I saw the built-in
    setting for torrents and edonkey - both of which can use encryption now.

    I noticed in uTorrent, in the advanced options,
    you can force it to use a single port for its initiated sessions.
    It worked, but I didn't see much improvement in performance, and some of
    the trackers complained about the single port - so not a good solution.

    So I've rearranged the qos rules closer to what you suggested and it seems
    to have helped.
    So - OK for now!
    Thanks -
     

Share This Page