Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Transmission 2.80 Offers Up Various Changes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,427

    Default Transmission 2.80 Offers Up Various Changes

    Phoronix: Transmission 2.80 Offers Up Various Changes

    Transmission, the multi-platform open-source BitTorrent client shipped by a number of Linux distributions, has been updated to version 2.80 and it brings with it a wide variety of changes...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM5Njk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Why was that interesting?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144

    Default My problem with transmission

    My problem with transmission (and all other torrent downloaders) always been two folds. I use it as a daemon and want to have it working as a daemon by default. With that in mind, I have a laundry list of features I want it to have once you start considering it running as a daemon:
    I want transmission to keep downloading while I log off. (DONE)
    I want it to start downloading when I boot up. (DONE)
    I want per-user downloads that can't be stopped by another unprivileged user. (NOT DONE)
    I want per-user hidden downloads so one user won't be able to see what the other is downloading if unprivileged to do so. (NOT DONE)
    I want per user storage and bandwidth quotas. (NOT DONE)

    It really all comes down to transmission not really fitting in with the multi-user environment. The way torrent protocol works, you only want one client per machine. Likely even per IP. I suspect it's the real reason why companies had troubles adopting torrents as a distribution model for files. They just can't set it up like they would an FTP server with multiple users.
    I personally blame the distributions and not the devs in this one. If they were to package it as a daemon by default so when someone "sudo apt-get transmission", he will have a working daemon and a transmission group he only needs to add himself to, the devs would have started hearing more about the multi user concerns.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    912

    Default

    To me transmission sucks because the gui main loop often blocks on the torrent I/O which makes it randomly non-responsive while the down/upload speed drops, it's the only bittorrent client I have this problem (for years). So I try to touch the GUI as rarely as possible.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    To me transmission sucks because the gui main loop often blocks on the torrent I/O which makes it randomly non-responsive while the down/upload speed drops, it's the only bittorrent client I have this problem (for years). So I try to touch the GUI as rarely as possible.
    The daemon uses (naturally non-blocking) RPC sockets to communicate with a variety of GUIs: Qt, GTK... Python, C, Pascal...
    This is the one I currently use:
    https://code.google.com/p/transmission-remote-gtk/
    It's in C and uses GTK.

    I used to use this one which is more feature complete:
    https://code.google.com/p/transmisson-remote-gui/
    It's possibly better for most use cases, but it's in Pascal so I can't play around it as much as I like.

    Most of these GUIs are more feature rich then the default provided one. The ones I've mentioned are also mostly less buggy. You can even use different GUIs at the same time from the same, or another machine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1

    Lightbulb For multiuser, use multiple cli instances with nohup...

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I want per-user downloads that can't be stopped by another unprivileged user. (NOT DONE)
    I want per-user hidden downloads so one user won't be able to see what the other is downloading if unprivileged to do so. (NOT DONE)
    I want per user storage and bandwidth quotas. (NOT DONE)
    I have many of your concerns, but I'm a happy user of transmission (v1.52). Its just a matter os using individual transmission-cli for every download, and launching them with nohup. For example (with upload limit of 20kB/s, $port has a non-used non-privileged port for use in this download):

    cd /path/to/new/download/dir
    nohup transmission-cli --port $port -u 20 -w "/path/to/new/download/dir" --finish /home/user/bin/touch-finished.sh /path/to/file.torrent 2>> nohup.out >>nohup.out

    After hacking some scripts it can be very convenient (this describes my current setup):
    1. Having a "watched" directory to save the .torrent files for automatic download (or a file with the suffix .magnet with the magnet link; firefox can be configured to call a script to do so when clicking a magnet)
    2. A script in crontab running every 5 minutes scans that directory to start new torrent with transmission-cli and nohup
    3. Every is keped tidy; there is a download directory with a subdirectory for every torrent, inside that directory is the nohup.out with the download stats and the torrent contents
    4. An utility script to list current download status (mixes a ps and does a tail of the nohup.out of every active downlaod)
    5. Another utility script to stop seeding a certain torrent

    Benefits:
    - You can stop a download killling the corresponding transmission-cli process
    - You can pause downloads sending a SIGSTOP and resume with SIGCONT
    - The scripts have "inteligence" as to when stop seeding (for example, after seeded 2 times the data size of 3 days)
    - The crontab script can restart a torrent if it is not "running" and it doesn't have finished downloading (this restarts downloads after a computer reboot)

    So if you are a power user, transmission-cli is sufficient for resolving those problem (although it may be non-optimal for magnets, as it may degrade the performance of PEX as every torrent is "independent").

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    421

    Default

    I’ve never had a problem with Transmission’s GUI (Gtk) freezing, even on a low power Atom computer. However the new version has “Remove the most frequent thread locks in libtransmission” in the release notes; maybe that will help.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I want per-user downloads that can't be stopped by another unprivileged user. (NOT DONE)
    Why not use a seperate daemon for each user? Unix has user seperation already, best not to reďmplement this again in the daemon.

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I want per-user hidden downloads so one user won't be able to see what the other is downloading if unprivileged to do so. (NOT DONE)
    Same argument as above.

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I want per user storage and bandwidth quotas. (NOT DONE)
    Linux has per user quota support (have never used it though). I think you can also use per use bandwidth throttling using tc and iptables (mark user packets).

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    It really all comes down to transmission not really fitting in with the multi-user environment. The way torrent protocol works, you only want one client per machine. Likely even per IP.
    I definitly would not ever want to have the same www browser process being used by several different users.

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I suspect it's the real reason why companies had troubles adopting torrents as a distribution model for files. They just can't set it up like they would an FTP server with multiple users.
    I disagree, with the reasons mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by c117152 View Post
    I personally blame the distributions and not the devs in this one. If they were to package it as a daemon by default so when someone "sudo apt-get transmission", he will have a working daemon and a transmission group he only needs to add himself to, the devs would have started hearing more about the multi user concerns.
    It's not how it's packaged, it's how people use it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Why not use a seperate daemon for each user? Unix has user seperation already, best not to reďmplement this again in the daemon.
    Sadly it seems the protocol itself doesn't lend to multiple instances running in the same machine. We've tried different loads and setups including foregoing all firewalls and security for the sake of testing. But, the clients just misbehaved and at rare cases even seg faulted. This wasn't just transmission but other implementations as well.

    At first, there were forwarding issues since each instance needs to open a whole lot of ports and just doesn't scale over 2-5 clients depending on the number of active torrents. Already some gigabyte (expensive at the time) cards and switches were unboxed since the overhead started to build up across the lan. This was already in the works so it didn't raise the red light.

    Then, we had some initial success with layer 2 switches to favor http and ftp per machine and establish quotas. But much of the network wasn't l2 so cost was unacceptable.

    Since we're not an open network, we decided to try and manage each client's machine separately instead. This already is something most companies wouldn't do. Never the less, we tried down regulating and limiting individual clients in each machine; To say, 10 peers per torrent and 50 overall connections and other figures. But, it either bottlenecked the network to the point that nothing was downloading and you couldn't even surf the web, or it killed the torrenting specifically.

    I even clearly remember the one setup that seemed to work, only the CIFS turned out unusable... Just weirdness all around. And mind you we weren't just doing just the usual amateurish protocol analyses. One of the guys was an ex signal processing dev and he run all sort of strange voodoo trying to figure out what was wrong. He's actually the one that said that the "peer in p2p means a separate lan ip". When I suggested a single daemon on a dedicated machine for the lan-wan with FTP-like user privileges. The decision was against it since the advantage versus FTP was not applicable for such a small firm. Obviously, I ignored the "decision" and went ahead to try and set it up only to discover that while many FTP daemons had their own optional user management, the bittorrent daemons did not.

    TL;DR: Been there, failed that. Like Samba and the various FTP servers (ProFTPD comes to mind), virtual users are necessary for more complex networks. It's the same pros\cons, and it's just as necessary. I suspect there is a way to still pull off a couple of daemons on the same physical machine, but I'm not convinced it will scale with firewalling and security without some real hardware costs. Still, I'd like to see a working setup...

  10. #10

    Default

    It's still too simple, I'll stick to Vuze even though it's written in Java... It's still the only torrent app that doesn't completely oversimplify things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •