BT : A non-blocking socket operation could not be completed

PC_Arcade

I keep getting this message using azureus :

Code:

A non-blocking socket operation could not be completed immediately

I also get all my peers "forcibly timed out due to socket inactivity"

Any ideas why?

I can't get ANY speed out of BT, even though my port passes the connection test

ThEdEaDLiVe · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:34 am **Post subject:**

If you want speed the best one is still shadow's client(bitornado). It looks like hell but it's THE best client out there bar none. I don't care what anybody says. Azureus has a shitload of options(the best client for the amount of options/plug ins) but isn't the greatest speed client at all.

As for those errors your getting i've never come across those two. I still think it's the client your using. Just try switching to bitornado and see if it helps. Even if you used it back in the past it's light years ahead of any other atm.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 11:28 am **Post subject:**

But it does not use any IP blocking right? I know it is not fool proof, but I would rather cut my chances.

George Tatum · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 11:40 am **Post subject:**

TaKYoNtheKoRRuPTeD wrote:

But it does not use any IP blocking right? I know it is not fool proof, but I would rather cut my chances.

Or alternatively install Protowall and use BLM.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:32 pm **Post subject:**

BLM would be Block List Manager by any chance? That is the one that sorts and reduces the size of blocked IP's right?

Got Protowall installed, had to turn off the display for allowed connections tho, was creating 20%+ CPU.

George Tatum · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:52 pm **Post subject:**

TaKYoNtheKoRRuPTeD wrote:

BLM would be Block List Manager by any chance? That is the one that sorts and reduces the size of blocked IP's right?

Got Protowall installed, had to turn off the display for allowed connections tho, was creating 20%+ CPU.

Correct, I've never had probs with Protowall myself though, but I do have an A64.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 12:55 pm **Post subject:**

Well I told it not to display or log allowed, and cpu usage is zero, or close to it.

One piece of advice tho, in BLM what ranges to block? I initially selected all, but the range is fucking huge.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:13 pm **Post subject:**

Damn, shoulda paid a little more attention, it is even blocking MSN Messenger LOL

George Tatum · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:35 pm **Post subject:**

I block ads trackers, DShield recommended blocklist, hijacked IP blocks, level 1, level 2, master exclusions, non-LAN list, range testing, spiders, spyware & trojans. Huge list, but I'm paranoid.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 1:51 pm **Post subject:**

LOL well I kinda figured level 1 is the standard p2p enemies, also added a couple of others too. Added level 2, bogon and d shield. Should keep me safe enuff, tho I will only really use PW when I am running p2p.

Glad to see that PW is more stable and less resource hungry than the crappy old PG.

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 7:42 pm **Post subject:**

PG2 uses less cpu than protowall times 50x now. No point in using protowall anymore.

It also allows you to not block traffic on port 80, which is very good, since the blocklists are always wrong.

killingjokezzz · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 9:02 pm **Post subject:**

Well I just installed PW and BLM. BLM seems kinda good, but PW wouldn't start with the 'Unable to load protowall.sys' driver. After I looked in the FAQ to how to repair it, ya know I just couldn't be arsed - so I uninstalled it.

Worse though my home LAN got totally screwed. It was working fine until I installed/uninstalled PW and then fucked. Just taken me 3 hours to get it back.

I think I'll stick to safepeer in AZ or ipfilter in Emule - but I'll give PG a try when I can be arsed again, ta Spud.

Oh yeah, PC_Arcade, there is a new version of AZ out - 2.3.0.0. You might want to give that a whirl for your problems.

PC_Arcade · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2005 9:28 pm **Post subject:**

I've switched to BitTornado and I've explicitly stated my external and internal IP and it seems to have allowed remote connections now

Still slow, but picking up.

Thanks for all the help

ThEdEaDLiVe · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 1:15 am **Post subject:**

Good to hear PCA. Speed should pick up.

A lot of the clients now are going for aesthetics and options and not working on the engines. Shadow's client has looked the same since it started because he keeps putting off all the fancy stuff(gui etc.) for improvements to the core engine, how it interacts with the tracker and how it works with other peers. Is why it gives the best speed for most. :wink:

PC_Arcade · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 7:04 am **Post subject:**

Keeps crashing though

Looks like I'm back to AZ

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 11:08 am **Post subject:**

BitTornado has also started crashing for me again, it always seems to do it when I have alot of connections, fine at the start of a torrent.

Back to AZ I think, however I will still use BLM and import my own blocklists to SafePeer.

ThEdEaDLiVe · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 1:59 pm **Post subject:**

Is it the same for you PCA that it crashes with too many connections? What do you guys have your settings at? These are mine...

A few have had the same problems you guys are having. http://forums.degreez.net/viewforum.php ... 63087a2c84 And more specifically for connections crashing http://forums.degreez.net/viewtopic.php?t=5125

I usually try and convince guys to switch from Azureus as it's a memory hog and most guys don't get as good of speed as bitornado.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 3:10 pm **Post subject:**

I used to have shit with the number of connections on my old PC, some issue with thenetwork card I reckon as I use a different one now and can be connected to over 1500 ppl on Azureus with no problems, but like you say it is a resource hog.

Currently using PeerGuardian alongside ABC, so far so good. Mem usage and CPU time is very low, prolly around 3% between the 2 on cpu. Also getting decent speed, not as high as AZ, but acceptable.

Only issue is why does it set the number of peers you try to connect to so low? Can't set it above 100, which is cack, I could shoot past that in no time on AZ.

ThEdEaDLiVe · **Posted:** Wed May 04, 2005 7:32 pm **Post subject:**

I'm not sure. I've never had any luck with ABC. It would connect to a bunch of peers and later on just drop all of them for no apparent reason and have to reconnect again. Mind you that was over a year ago since i last used it so not sure how it is now.

TaKYoN · **Posted:** Thu May 05, 2005 1:30 pm **Post subject:**

Well ABC is based on BitTornado I think, but it is definitely more stable for me.

It does indeed appear to drop most of the clients after a while, but as it reconnects almost instantly, ie within a second or 2, I do not think it is actually dropping them, atleast not for me, as it can drop to zero on seeds and peers but continue downing at 200K before showing them as all connected again.

It takes longer to get going initially, but overall performance is not too shabby.

BT : A non-blocking socket operation could not be completed

Who is online