Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.3.x

Testing the freshly baked, latest builds!
b9AcE
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 4:58 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by b9AcE » Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:57 pm

I scanned qBittorrent-3.2.3-release-3.2.3-0-g8bf23e8-Qt5-x64-setup.exe with VirusTotal.com and it gave the result 0/55 anti-virus engines reporting it as problematic.
Maybe your false positive was fixed in a definitions update Tomaso?

User avatar
Tomaso
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Tomaso » Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:03 pm

[quote="b9AcE"]
I scanned qBittorrent-3.2.3-release-3.2.3-0-g8bf23e8-Qt5-x64-setup.exe with VirusTotal.com and it gave the result 0/55 anti-virus engines reporting it as problematic.
Maybe your false positive was fixed in a definitions update Tomaso?
[/quote]

Nope.
I just checked, and I've got the very latest definitions.

--

EDIT:
It doesn't happen with the old installers, nor the new .7z archives.
..so something must have changed with the installers themselves.
Last edited by Tomaso on Sun Aug 02, 2015 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rainmaker
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:53 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Rainmaker » Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:47 pm

'Susp' sounds like the heuristics have flagged it as a potential problem, rather than a full on detection. Kaspersky 2015 (one of the best apps which intensely monitors system processes ect) didn't make a peep for me. Installed and working A-OK, thanks again for the fast builds!

User avatar
Tomaso
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Tomaso » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:09 pm

[quote="Rainmaker"]sounds like the heuristics have flagged it as a potential problem, rather than a full on detection.[/quote]

Yeah, well, I've submitted both installers to them as false positives, so we'll see what happens.

User avatar
Tomaso
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Tomaso » Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:03 pm

Damn!
I've reported the false positive to avast! two times already, but it seems that the reports didn't get through because of the file attachments!
Anyway, I just reported it again (with just links this time).

User avatar
Tomaso
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Tomaso » Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:27 am

[quote="Tomaso"]Both installers (Qt4 and Qt5) gets flagged by avast! as "Win32:Evo-gen [Susp]".
A false positive of course, but a problem nevertheless.[/quote]

Well, that was fast..
As soon as I actually got a report through, they fixed it righ away (in definitions v150806-1)!

Interesting how their engine @ VirusTotal.com differs from the one found in their actual client.

fusk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by fusk » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:37 pm

@Dayman
Has the bug in the 64bit version that limits the cache size to the same as the 32bit version been fixed in 3.2.3 ?
Last edited by fusk on Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dayman
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:12 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Dayman » Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:10 pm

This fix should have been in 3.2.0
Building x86_64 stuff on Windows due to Gentoo syndrome.

Jabber: [email protected]
Skype: x.dayman
Irc #[email protected]: Dayman

fusk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by fusk » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:13 pm

[quote="Dayman"]
This fix should have been in 3.2.0
[/quote]

I installed it today, and it does not appear to have been fixed. Using the default cache size and timeout at 60sec. At 1.9gb it stops. But it does not crash like the 32bit version does. I might be wrong tho, i could test it again.
Last edited by fusk on Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dayman
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:12 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by Dayman » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:37 pm

In 64bit version you can manually set cache size to 4Gb.
Using the default cache size
If you mean (auto), then this setting is handled by libtorrent internally. It usually sets the size to RAM/8
Building x86_64 stuff on Windows due to Gentoo syndrome.

Jabber: [email protected]
Skype: x.dayman
Irc #[email protected]: Dayman

fusk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by fusk » Fri Aug 07, 2015 10:56 pm

Dayman wrote: In 64bit version you can manually set cache size to 4Gb.
Using the default cache size
If you mean (auto), then this setting is handled by libtorrent internally. It usually sets the size to RAM/8
Yeah, i was using auto. It seems to be recommended to let qbit manage these things on it's own. But if it's set the cache size by ram/8 i guess i have to manually set it, for it to use higher.
It's not something i have the use for all the time, but when my connection really gets going, those 1,98gb are gone within minutes if using the default settings.
Last edited by fusk on Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ciaobaby
Forum addict
Forum addict
Posts: 2771
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by ciaobaby » Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:30 am

those 1,98gb are gone within minutes if using the default settings.
And the problem with that is??
Smarter than the av-er-age bear, Boo Boo.

http://qbforums.shiki.hu/index.php/topic,3084.0.html

fusk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by fusk » Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:51 am

ciaobaby wrote:
those 1,98gb are gone within minutes if using the default settings.
And the problem with that is??
What would the consequence be if the program wants/needs/requires more memory during active download/upload, but none is made available ?

User avatar
ciaobaby
Forum addict
Forum addict
Posts: 2771
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by ciaobaby » Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:12 pm

None at all., I guess you probably don't fully understand what the cache is actually there for and what it does.

All that would happen is that it would expire or flush some older cache items before reusing the memory.
Smarter than the av-er-age bear, Boo Boo.

http://qbforums.shiki.hu/index.php/topic,3084.0.html

fusk
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.2.x

Post by fusk » Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:59 pm

[quote="ciaobaby"]
None at all., I guess you probably don't fully understand what the cache is actually there for and what it does.

All that would happen is that it would expire or flush some older cache items before reusing the memory.
[/quote]

Then i guess there isn't a problem.
I think the cache is there for two things, one being as a buffer while the drives are writing during a download with both active download/upload. Two being cache files with a high request rate unless the drive has it's own cache that can hold those files.
The problem i would expect from a full cache is slowed download speeds, which one would want to prevent.

Post Reply