Unofficial 64-bit installer/archive 3.3.x

[Nemo]

Things to consider when using a 64Bit client, especially if you have:

- 64Bit OS (speaks for itself).
- 4-8GB or more RAM (RAM that is not being used is waisted RAM, no harm in using it they are there to be used).
- Very fast internet line (for example 32Bit crashes when reaching a certain RAM usage cause it can't keep up when more RAM is needed).
- Having loads of torrents, big sized torrents, downloading and uploading at very high speeds (RAM is also needed for these things).

These would be my advice to use a 64Bit client instead the 32Bit one.

Stick with the 64bit version from Dayman if it works as you want, fusk . At the end they are both the same instead one being a 32Bit and the other 64Bit.

Did you tried running qBittorrent with the OS cache off in the advanced settings? I've being experimenting this and have it off for some time now (with 64Bit qBittorrent v3.2.3) and kinda like it more than when its enabled (by default).

[fusk]

I know that the primary thing about 64bit apps is memory allocation above 2gb, the main reason i tried the 64bit was because of the crashes i get in the 32bit version. Feature wise the programs are the same, and if i'm not mistaken they most likely perform the same as well. Believe i've seen people mention that 64bit versions of bittorrent programs isn't really needed for the majority.
I do have more ram than that, and my connection is faster than very fast.
Up to ~170 torrents running before i clean out, usually. For storage usage around 500gb to 1.5tb depending on amount of torrents.

No, i haven't tried turning the OS cache off as the only thing i know about it is that it lets the program control cache instead of win. I actually prefer leaving it at default as i've seen people like ciaobaby mention it over and over again in different threads that, that is the preferred setting. But at the same time i also want the best performance for simultaneous download/upload.

[ciaobaby]

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.

No. You are correct  with the cache being a buffer but it is not for 'files'. "Blocks" are what are cached and blocks are the 16 kilobyte parcels of data which are the smallest amount of data that BitTorrent clients pass during the transfer. Neither files or 'pieces' are in transit or in the cache. So the actual cache size ONLY needs to as large as the number of flocks that are actively being downloaded or uploaded during the cache expiry time.

If you want to see how cache is actually be used by qBittorrent/libtorrent  open the statistics (View -> Statistics) panel and look at Cache Statistics and Performance Statistics to see how efficient the client is running. You will find that performance usually suffers  if you have a cache that is way too large. For most users a cache size of 128 - 256 MB is more than enough and will prevent the Windows cache runaway from bringing the client or machine to a grinding halt.

[fusk]

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.

No. You are correct  with the cache being a buffer but it is not for 'files'. "Blocks" are what are cached and blocks are the 16 kilobyte parcels of data[...]

Ok, blocks, not files. I tend to just say files but i know it's not correct. I actually watch the "statistics" a lot, and usually it's the "overloaded write cache" that i'm looking at. When download speeds range between 50/100 mb/s i usually use "download in chronological order" not sure what it's called in english, but that tends to help and not overload the drives as fast. I wish there was a way to use an ssd as a temp drive, then i would never have performance issues.

[BabaBooey]

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.

No. You are correct  with the cache being a buffer but it is not for 'files'. "Blocks" are what are cached and blocks are the 16 kilobyte parcels of data[...]

Ok, blocks, not files. I tend to just say files but i know it's not correct. I actually watch the "statistics" a lot, and usually it's the "overloaded write cache" that i'm looking at. When download speeds range between 50/100 mb/s i usually use "download in chronological order" not sure what it's called in english, but that tends to help and not overload the drives as fast. I wish there was a way to use an ssd as a temp drive, then i would never have performance issues.

You can use SSD as a temp drive. When the download is done it gets moved to your download folder.

[fusk]

No. You are correct  with the cache being a buffer but it is not for 'files'. "Blocks" are what are cached and blocks are the 16 kilobyte parcels of data[...]

Ok, blocks, not files. I tend to just say files but i know it's not correct. I actually watch the "statistics" a lot, and usually it's the "overloaded write cache" that i'm looking at. When download speeds range between 50/100 mb/s i usually use "download in chronological order" not sure what it's called in english, but that tends to help and not overload the drives as fast. I wish there was a way to use an ssd as a temp drive, then i would never have performance issues.

You can use SSD as a temp drive. When the download is done it gets moved to your download folder.

Well, yes, sort of. That only works if the torrent is smaller than the drive. It wouldn't be "streaming" the download to the target destination while downloading. Let's say a download is 20gb, the drive being a 10gb ssd. After having downloaded whatever amount qbit would deem fine. It would start sending data to the target destination to prevent getting stuck with "not enough space" and avoiding high iops on the target drive to keep transfer speeds high.
Not sure, but does it keep torrents where you only wanted some of the files ?

[BabaBooey]

It's not a temp drive solution per se, but small SSD's shouldn't be a problem in 2015. How often do you download torrents that are so large, they can't fit on a average sized SSD?
I have a Gbit connection at home, and I have no speed problems using the default cache setting(auto). I'm downloading straight to a raid 6 array. I have to use the x64 version though, or else I will reach the 1.9 GB limit, sooner or later.

Anyway, this is off topic, as this have nothing to do with the x64 version.

[fusk]

[quote="BabaBooey"]
It's not a temp drive solution per se, but small SSD's shouldn't be a problem in 2015. How often do you download torrents that are so large, they can't fit on a average sized SSD?
I have a Gbit connection at home, and I have no speed problems using the default cache setting(auto). I'm downloading straight to a raid 6 array. I have to use the x64 version though, or else I will reach the 1.9 GB limit, sooner or later.

Anyway, this is off topic, as this have nothing to do with the x64 version.
[/quote]

No wonder with a raid 6. I have two sshd's in raid 0 with a 16gb read cache. On a torrent with a single file it's no problem. But torrents where the content is splitted in rar's it becomes a problem at 1gbit speeds. It's just too many iops for the mechanical drives to keep up. I very often download 10gb+ torrents.

But it might be worth looking at, small ssd's probably aren't that expensive any more. Will qbit automatically download directly to target drive if torrent is larger than temp drive?
Also, do you know if you can hide the drive in explorer as it'll only be qbit using it ?
And, when download is done, does it pause the torrent while transferring or does it remain active ?

As a sidenote, if you use auto in the 64bit version, it won't use more memory than the 32bit. You have to manually set it higher for it to use above 1.9gb.

[BabaBooey]

SSD up to 250 GB are not expensive these days. You can get a Samsung 850 EVO 250GB for about 800 DKK.

I don't know if you can hide it, but as long as it has a drive letter, I guess you can? But I can't see a reason to do that.
It remains active, but it won't start to seed before the transfer is done obviously

The cache is at auto at the moment, and it's using around 200 MB at this time. But qBittorrent are using 2,1 GB(444 seeding torrents, 10 active). So I'm guessing it's due to OS caching?
Anyway, the x64 version can allocate more memory and therefore keeps on running

[fusk]

[quote="BabaBooey"]
SSD up to 250 GB are not expensive these days. You can get a Samsung 850 EVO 250GB for about 800 DKK.

I don't know if you can hide it, but as long as it has a drive letter, I guess you can? But I can't see a reason to do that.
It remains active, but it won't start to seed before the transfer is done obviously

The cache is at auto at the moment, and it's using around 200 MB at this time. But qBittorrent are using 2,1 GB(444 seeding torrents, 10 active). So I'm guessing it's due to OS caching?
Anyway, the x64 version can allocate more memory and therefore keeps on running
[/quote]

I'm a student, so 800,- is a bit much for my wallet, and just for a temp drive. But i might just be able to dig up a 60gb drive. The reason to hide it is just a personal thing about keeping things neat and stuff. But it really is a luxury problem.

[Nemo]

[quote="BabaBooey"]
Anyway, this is off topic, as this have nothing to do with the x64 version.
[/quote]

All good, you can continue here no problems .

[mindbomb]

Well, speaking of temporary drives, you can create a virtual 4GB drive out of system memory with things like the free version of dataram ramdisk. I'm not sure what happens if the torrent is larger than the drive. The benefit of this is that you don't have to worry about nand endurance, though you do lose memory.

Anyway, I was wondering if the 64 bit builds have an update notification like the 32 bit versions?

[Xand]

Can somebody share 3.1.12 x64? Cannot find it..
Thank you.

[Tomaso]

[quote="Xand"]
Can somebody share 3.1.12 x64? Cannot find it..
Thank you.[/quote]

Here you go:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/x637c ... Dayman.zip

[numb3rs666]

Hi at All,
I have two simple questions:
1) could be the 7Zip Version, if right configured, considered portable or something remain in the host PC?
2) exist the possibility to use the internal search engine using a portable version of python instead to install it?

Thanks a lot.