BitComet causing excessive ping times

[Rhubarb]

Are youi that obtuse that you can't see that one of the posters you claim had 'the same fault' actually had ping times of 1 mS? NOT THE SAME PROBLEM

The second poster had a DHT error - again NOT THE SAME PROBLEM

Both posters were using 1.72 - NOT 1.92

RE-READ THE POST YOU KEEP THROWING IN

[gamma754293]

On 7/9/2022 at 10:58 PM, gamma754293 said:

Whenever I have the BitComet client running, I notice that the network will see ping times to google.com ranging anywhere from the 3544 ms to > 9000 ms mark with about a 3.8% packet loss.

That is LITERALLY the third sentence in my OP.

And here is the TITLE of the thread:

"Bitcomet makes my internet packet loss"

His LITERAL description of the problem, as stated here:

"hi , red lines is time when packet loss happen, it happen every 30 mins,  i can not give you a ping result, i capture it with pingplotter ( ping monitor program ) 

Just set IP to fixd value but it still have packet loss , when i turn off BC, packet loss is disappear after some minutes  , i thing BC trigger something

Here is my video for easily imagine"

Is LITERALLY EXACTLY the same thing that I am saying -- that the BitComet client is causing and/or triggering something.

nam2lenh LITERALLY writes:

"i use ping every time I use my PC , so packet is send & receive  frequently , but can you suggest me to check something with BC because every time I open BC, packet loss happen immediately     "

Tell me again how this is NOT the same thing?

re: your point about different versions
So this is a problem that has persisted from version 1.72 THROUGH version 1.92 and that it was a problem back then, and it's STILL a problem now (apparently and evidently).

 

That's all that statement tells me is that someone told you about this problem back when the BitComet client was still in version 1.74 and now, after how many months/years later, you're STILL getting reports of the same issue popping up, which means that it was never corrected/fixed to begin with, since then.

 

That's all that statement is admitting to.

 

You deny that the problem isn't the same, and yet, as I have LITERALLY highlighted for you, funny how nam2lenh LITERALLY uses the EXACT same wording that I have used to describe the problem.

 

Huh. Strange that.

 

amarsi, literally also wrote: "I have had the same problem for some time, but not always. It seemed fixed with version 1.74, but after a while it reappeared."

 

To which, your first response was LITERALLY: "...(or this thread would be full of 'me too' posts)."

 

nam2lenh then writes: "Well it 's hard to say the problem is came from BC, but when i turn off BC, the packet loss is disappear"

 

trihard7 also further, literally tells you: "It's definitely problem with DHT, since i updated from 1.64 to 1.74. ( Never had this problem before, on the older version )

Whenever u start up bitcomet it get's bombarded with thousands of connections and this gets fixed once u disable DHT in options. 

Hope you can fix this issue in 1.75"

 

trihard7 also tells you: "Everytime i start bitcomet with DHT enabled, it has lot of sessions. 

And yes, I removed all entries in torrent exchange and also history. That didn't fix it. ( The only thing that fixes it is to disable DHT and when U launch bitcomet it has 0 sessions )"

 

trihard7 was the last person who wrote in that thread: "Default settings is set to 1000 magnet files, idk what really is causing this.

When i launch bitcomet it takes like 3-5 seconds to boot up, it was never like that on the older version."

 

At which point, you have ceased/don't bother to respond to that thread anymore.

 

Three other people are telling you that the problem lies with the BitComet client trying to spawn the default 1000 DHT connections on startup, and that can potentially be a reason why the title of that thread is LITEARLLY: "Bitcomet makes my internet packet loss"

 

Your response: denial, denial, denial. (actually, you alternate between denialism, "if this was a problem, this forum would be full of 'me too' threads", and "if I can't replicate it, then it's not an issue)

 

LOLLLL....

 

And the fact that you have given three excuses rather than a consistent, singular excuse, demonstrates the lack of internal consistency as far as the root cause of the problem is concerned, but rather highlights at least that you're consistently in denial (about a problem that three other people have told you about).

 

How stupid do you have to be where you have failed to connect the dots between BitComet trying to IMMEDIATELY spawn 1000 DHT connections (the default value) and its effect on ping times/network load?

 

And just as I have told you, amarsi also tells you: "The same problem does not occur with other clients such as Utorrent, Deluge or eMule."

 

You claim that other people haven't told you about this problem.

 

The fact that you can't connect the dots between the impact that BitComet trying to spawn 1000 DHT connections has with respect to ping times -- I can't help that you cannot seem to be able to connect those dots together when you've already been explicitly told that one affects the other and there is little evidence to suggest that spawning 1000 DHT connections does NOT have an adverse impact with respect to ping times, which is precisely what nam2lenh was telling you about, and was seconded by amarsi, and trihard7 was the third.

 

You were literally told of this apparent relationship between BitComet trying to spawn 1000 DHT connections on startup and the adverse effect that has on ping times.

 

And as it is in this thread, you deny that BitComet is the cause of the problem when three other people besides myself has likewise, explicitly told you that the BitComet client is the problem.

 

And the fact that you completely STOPPED responding to the other thread entire, provides the data and the evidence which shows that you weren't able to provide a rebuttal against trihard7's findings/results.

 

Your approach to address this problem and also the problem that nam2lenh, amarsi, and trihard7 provides the data which shows that BitComet is going to s*** and that it's time to move on to a different, better client(s) like Utorrent, Deluge or eMule.

 

Like you said, there's no point in talking with you about this any further.

 

You have failed to actually offer anything that can help myself, nam2lenh, amarsi, nor trihard7 given that we have all reported about the same issue. The fact that you can't connect the dots between BitComet trying to spawn 1000 DHT connections on startup and the adverse impact that it has on ping times -- I can't help you make that connection if you can't see it yourself.

 

BitComet's been completely uninstalled and decomissioned from my systems/network, which is a shame because BitComet used to be good. But with this, and especially with how you have responded to not just my thread here, but also other people's reports of problems, tells me that the nature of the problem (and why it is still happening now, after two point revisions later) shows habitual denialism; so it's no wonder why the problem still isn't fixed because you continue to deny that a problem ever existed in the first place, despite the fact that three other people besides myself has already told you about it.

 

And that's fine. Don't fix it.

 

Then your user base will shrink and people will move on to using something else that's better (or at least something else that doesn't cause this issue for them).

 

And for the record, I've tested it with trying to COMPLETELY disable ANY other tracking system (DHT and all of the others) as much as the client will let me do so, and the problem STILL persists and I have no idea what the client is doing or trying to do in the background even with said DHT supposedly shut off/disabled. (I think that it still actually made DHT connections or at least attempted to do so.)

 

Either way, there's a problem. Your denialism certainly doesn't help the reputation of the client itself. And since you have no interest in fixing it here, nor in the other thread which was posted here at least a year and a half ago, it is quite clear, evident, and obvious that you don't want nor care if people use the BitComet client or not given that you have no interest in trying to actually keep users using said BitComet client.

 

That's okay.

 

I'll just move on to something else instead.

 

Thanks for your "help".

[Rhubarb]

Perhaps instead of posting excessively long screeds which simply prove that you either haven't actually READ the thread, you don't seem to realise that the thread is for a very old version, that they haven't posted in over a year which is, to any normal person, sufficient proof that the problem was solved and that his ping times are in the order of ONE second

I will repeat NO-ONE ELSE IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH PING TIMES

[gamma754293]

4 hours ago, Rhubarb said:

I will repeat NO-ONE ELSE IS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH PING TIMES

Sure. If you LITERALLY ignore this post/comment:
 

"sorry youtube delete my video , here is every i capture on my screen , include ping result ,pls take a look at this "

I mean, you even SPECIFICALLY ASKED for the ping time results here:
 

"If you are unwilling to tell me the results of a ping in COMMAND PROMPT, there's nothing further I can do "

And since you're ignoring data anyways, nam2lenh LITERALLY writes at the very beginning of this thread, five sentences in on his OP:

"Here is my ping monitor from my PC to 192.168.1.1, my bitcomet version is 1.74" whereby the plot shows....drum roll please....ping times.

 

*gasps!!!*

 

But of course, you're right, it's not about ping times, despite the fact that that's LITERALLY what he plots for you, in his OP.

 

Your response to his plot:

 

"That set of red lines tells me absolutely nothing. If you want a ping value, open a command prompt and type 'ping 192.168.1.1' (without quotes) and also try a ping to your isp (do NOT post that IP here or anywhere else) "

 

(Source:

 

 

In other words, you're just as dismissive to nam2lenh as you are here. At least you're consistently dismissive.

 

And equally dismissive:

"As I said, it's unlikely to be BC itself or we would have a huge number of posts on the subject - so far it's only two. "

(Source:

)

But once again, hey, at least you're consistently dismissive.

So...once again, what's LITERALLY in the thread, with comments/replies written by three other people - but you assert that it's not about ping times despite the fact that the word "ping" LITERALLY occurs in that thread, 17 times, so much so that even you, personally ask for the ping time data yourself, which nam2lenh provides to you both in a YouTube video (which was removed by YouTube) as well as screenshots and data that was logged using his pingplotter program, which, monitors ping times. *gaspsss!!!*

I know, right?

Shocker, isn't it?

But you're right, it's not about ping times, even though that's the data that you, yourself personally asked for.

Go figures, eh?

Here's your post asking for the ping time data that you wrote:
 

And here are the results that nam2lenh provided to you:
 

If it isn't about ping times, then why are you asking for ping time data from nam2lenh???

 

So you're right. It's not about ping times, despite the fact that you literally asked nam2lenh for ping time data.

 

Huh.

 

Interrresting.

 

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[cassie]

Sigh!

Although I'm in no way a 'tech guru', I am a moderator with a finite amount of patience.

If you are so unhappy using BitComet as your client (you have previously stated that you are using it at the same time as two other clients), I suggest that, at least, you show that you do possess some amount of common courtesy.

First, by not using offensive words which the forum's system, itself, overrides.

Secondly, have you tried to report your issue to the Development Team directly (albeit in Mandarin, of course...use Google for the translation, if need be, you seem to be quite good at it from your countless references to using said search engine) as was suggested by an Admin?

I have been a resident of BitComet Forums, assuredly, a lot longer than yourself, and I am always amazed at how imperious some users like to sound and, rather than thanking those who donate their free time to attempt to aid others (not being remunerated, by the way), feel it is their God-given right to insult and try to belittle them, just because they do not see eye-to-eye with what is suggested. Thank Goodness that this is not the case of the vast majority of the more than 100,000 worldwide users of this free application!!

It is tiring, however, to read their posts, over and over, just so that they can vent their pent-up frustrations here (instead of head-butting the wall, for example). Everyone here (and I must include users and Staff, alike) are part of a society that is altruistic in their ideals towards this client, and I have yet to hear someone say 'thank you for your attempted help'...without any sarcasm or second meaning.

Third, ever so politely ask for a full refund (oh, wait... you didn't have to pay for it, did you?), and the developers  for a  full disclosure of the program's code. Would that decrease your infinite rage and please your Magnanimous self?

PD - You mention the red engine light of your car... funny, my old car didn't have such light, and the mechanics could only attempt to solve the problem once they could duplicate the problem itself... it was all trial-and-error, until they were able to correct it. Of course, I didn't try to tell them that they were ignoring the problem, just because, at the beginning, they couldn't duplicate the temperament of my car. Nor did I tell them that all of their 'brainstorming' was idiotic. It was not my place, in my opinion, since I am not a mechanic. What did I do, in the end? Thank them profusely for fixing my car and go on my merry way. There is a Spanish proverb that says that 'to be thankful is a sign of being well-bred' ("Ser agradecido es de ser bien nacido").

Now, go on, and be a gentleman. Good day!

 

*topic closed*

[The UnUsual Suspect]

Our volunteers are under no obligation to help you, they do so out of the kindness of their heart. If you want to complain and bitch go speak to the developers in their language. 

We escalate only bugs we can verify, but you can contact them directly. We are done trying to help you.