Why use this, when there's qBittorent?
Why use qBittorrent, when there's this?
Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
51–60 of 262 posts
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#52After Netflix and others streaming services, I stop using Transmission. What’s the current usage of BitTorrent?
Well after Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, Disney+ and dozens of other regional streaming services, I started using Transmission again.
Or, when the TV Series you've been watching gets removed from Netflix from one day to another
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#53When I first came to Linux I adopted Transmission. It seemed less featureful than others but now I like its simplicity, does everything it needs and it is also very reliable. It is not very known but there actually is a transmission-cli for common torrent operations that may come in handy some time.
There's also the Transmission Remote GUI, which is a nice GUI for remotely controlling the Transmission daemon, on say, a NAS: https://github.com/transmission-remote-gui/transgui
It's great for keeping downloads going overnight without having to leave all the power-hungry devices powered on.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#54When I first came to Linux I adopted Transmission. It seemed less featureful than others but now I like its simplicity, does everything it needs and it is also very reliable. It is not very known but there actually is a transmission-cli for common torrent operations that may come in handy some time.
It's a great piece of software. I'm running a web remote v2.92 on an rpi with simple basic auth protection, and it has been working flawlessly for years now.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Webtorrent is a modification to the bittorrent protocol to allow it to be used from a web browser with no plugins/extensions. It's built on top of WebRTC. Webtorrent and regular torrents can exist of the same file, but crucially, at least some small percentage of the people in the network have to support both webtorrent and regular torrent to act as a kind of bridge between the two. If this isn't the case, you might…
This would be cool but part of me think that most web users will just leach to watch movies in their browsers.
Simply seeding for the 1+ hour you are watching the movie is typically enough to keep a torrent swarm healthy now that the majority of users have 10 Mbps+upload speeds. In that time, you can easily upload more data than you downloaded, meaning you are a net benefit for the swarm.
In a general sense, any video content where the bitrate is lower than the typical users upload bitrate could work for a webtorrent only swarm of 'regular' users who aren't going to do anything special for network health.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont know but transmission 3.0 era uses 200K+ DNS lookup with about 30 active torrent in a space of two to three weeks. I dont think I ever got to the bottom of it.
Thats like 1 per second. Which isn't really much. Thats probably 1 per person who connects or tries to connect to your machine.
A BT client doesn’t need to do DNS resolution for peers, since peers are bare IP addresses. It does need to resolve DNS for tracker domains when periodically announcing, and a public torrent can have a lot of trackers. Those add up if tracker domains have low TTL, I suppose.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#57If someone asks me to install a Torrent client on a single machine, my favorite would be QBittorrent, however at home I use XigmaNAS' Transmission client extensively, and operate it from other machines in the LAN using the Transgui interface (also available on Windows and MacOS). This allows me to turn off everything but the NAS, which with all RAID disks spun down and a TDP of 15 Watts makes for some good energy savings.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#58As a Chinese, I really need the anti leeching capabilities, as too many people here use Xunlei that only download but never upload. Sad to see that the maintainers skip this again.
It’s probably impossible to track that with any meaningful precision. Historically it’s the (central) tracker that implements the bookkeeping.
Impossible to track with 100% accuracy, yes. But not completely meaningless to do some basic tracking. A torrent client could implement some tracking on their own, where they keep track of seen clients and keep track how much been uploaded vs downloaded from them (effectively ratio per client) and upload slower to clients you've never encountered that have been uploading.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
So no functional differences?
I would say Transmission has simpler UI. Outside of UI, it's also packaged differently, compared to Qbittorrent, Transmission can be installed completely headlessly without dependencies to QT/GTK+X. In terms of actual features, Transmission is more lightweight. It doesn't support super-seeding, broadcatching, native SOCKS support and doesn't have built-in search engine integration.
> I would say Transmission has simpler UI
This is true but for me this is a disadvantage. qBitTorrent allows to fine-tune a lot of settings. Not as many as Tixati but still.
Re: Transmission 4.0.0 beta 1
#60I haven't used torrent in a long time. Does it have any other usecase than piracy?