This problem seems similar and maybe the same as others have reported.
The unit will download files via torrents just fine, and after downloading will continue uploading it as long as I wish. No problems there.
The problem is when I create a file I wish to seed. Seeding at best is unreliable.
The only way I have been able to get the thing to seed is to copy the relevant file to the Bittorrent folder, and also to the 'Active'folder. Then I add the torrent file (with trackers from the relvant site) through the UI. The client then checks the torrent and progress can be seen 0 to 100%. At that point 100%, the unit sometimes starts to upload the file, but it is erratic. Some of the time it just does nothing, shows no connections at all, no peers etc and does nothing. It shows a blue 'download' icon as if its waiting for something before it can upload.
I can take the same torrent and put it in a software client (I use uTorrent) and it works just fine, starts uploading immediately and carries on, so there's nothing wrong with the file or the torrent. There's plenty of bandwidth so the upload isn't being stifled.
Last night I did all this and the Buff refused to start uploading, showing no connections. I put the torrent into UTorrent, and straight away it showed a number of peers and hit 50kB/s. Today, the Buff still shows no connections and hasn't uploaded a single kb, whilst uTorrent has uploaded nearly 1GB using the same torrent file and copies of the source file.
Anyone any ideas? I got this particular unit because of the torrent app so I didn't have to keep my PC on and have the torrent activity slow my PC down. But whilst the Buff downloads great (and uploads files it has downloaded), I have to use uTorrent to create new uploads.
Port forwarding is set up ok on the router and there is no problem with downloads at all. FW is 107-065 and the router is Netgear Rangemax WPN824, and using XP Home SP3
This is a great piece of HW and whilst I can accept the relatively low spec of the torrent function, I can't accept inability to upload.
TIA
Thanks for your advice
I updated the FW to the latest version when I got it (to cure the inability to write to the torrent folder as described elsewhere) and its running 107-065 (not 106 as I first said above)
I can't remember if I intialised it, but I followed directions and didn't have any problems with the update.
I just tried to update the FW again with 107 but it wouldn't let me (nor would it let it go back to 106) so I then tried to intialise it. It said operation successful but it happened in a second which seems fast, and it didn't restore the default admin password as I selected, nor were any users deleted. In fact, no apparent change... and it still won't seed.
Any suggestions anyone?
Right now, the unit is sat doing nothing. The file I started to upload this morning has ul just 7% and hasnt uploaded anything for a few hours.
I've just started to seed the same file in uTorrent and straight away it started to upload between 10-20kB/s. The Buffalo shows no UL. In a few minutes, uTorrent has uploaded 2% and at this rate will soon have uploaded more than the Buffalo despite the latter having a head start of 12 hours.
With the Buff and uTorrent running simultaneously, the Buff shows 3 peers online from a total of 23, whilst uTorrent shows 21 on line from a total of 38. That's a BIG difference and must impact upload rates.
The Buffalo isn't uploading anything whilst uTorrent shows an ul of up to 60kB/s. I expect uTorrent to continue to perform like that whilst Buffalo won't ul anything.
So, any ideas? Is my procedure for starting a torrent seed ok?
I'm very disappointed with the performance of the Torrent function and it seems poorly conceived and badly implemented. I had a choice of several external drive units but bought the LC CHL specifically so my PC didn't have to be on to use torrents. It seems I could've bought a cheaper disc unit without the torrent (mal)function and used uTorrent as I am forced to do anyway.
To show the disparity between the Buffalo and uTorrent, one hour and 10 minutes after starting uTorrent, it has ul 12%. The buffalo, after 14 hours has up 7%. uTorrent shows 31 online peers, the Buffalo only 4.
This is lamentable performance......... both are using the same torrent file, and same target file, and the Buffalo has the advantage of connecting direct to the router rather than wirelessly.
Is there an offical comment from Buffalo regarding the non-functionality of this product, or, if my procedure is incorrect, is there an official instruction as the supplied help regarding the Bittorrent function is abysmal and clearly an afterthought.
So,several days after mt last post and no more comments.... Does that mean Buffalo don't have a procedure for starting seeds? Does it mean no one knows if there is a procedure, or does it mean everyone accepts that this is a rubbish torrent client and everyone has given up on it? Or does it mean Buffalo accept they are ripping people off with such a product and are keeping their heads down?
Personally, the torrent function was a big factor in my choosing it. I could have chosen from a number of external and network drive products, all of them cheaper, but I chose this one because I thought it meant I could turn my PC off and leave the buffalo downloading and seeding...... how wrong I was. Download yes, upload no. By simultaneously seeding with both the Buffalo and uTorrent, I can see that the software has uploaded more than 10x the Buffalo, and has registered 25% more peers.
As I need to use uTorrent to upload, I've now switched all torrent activity to it, and the Buffalo is just a drive. By using uTorrent, I get better specifications and better performance............ and for free. How come uTorrent and other software is free but works fine and has better specifcuation, wehn bBuffalo charge a premuim fdor their proyucts whjoth a torrent function that doesn't work? An important question that I think EVERY purchaser of this equipment should have answered.
Admit it Buffalo, this product just does NOT work and you are ripping people off. Well, some of us have long memories about such treatment and don't come back for more.
Anybody like to deny any of this?
Sorry for your troubles and the time it took for this answer. I'll test this out to see if it's an issue with your particular product, or something wrong with the software on it.
Could you post what trackers and indexing sites you're using so I can check that too?
It's completely tracker, file and site independent - the simulataneous seeding against uTorrent showed that the latter outperforms the drive significantly with varying files and sites. File size seemed irrelevant also. I think there are others on this site that have reported similar if not the same problem.
One factor is that sometimes, the unit will start to seed, and then stop after a short while and show no connections. That could mislead someone to think there was no demand for their file, whilst my comparison against uTorrent showed that the drive doesn't report or seemingly make, available connections. The problem could be very unreported because unless a user makes simultaneous seedings, he won't know if the Buffalo is performing adequately and may just think there is little demand. A simultaneous seed showed that there was demand and that the Buffalo just wouldn't connect. It's nothing to do with bandwidth or anything, even restricting the max UL in utorrent to 1Kb/s showed that the software will happily make connections and seed whilst the drive wouldn't - same torrent, same target file, same internet connection etc.
The unit appears to download ok, but I haven't made any comparison. It's possible that the unit under-performs on downloads as well.
Dear all
I have same problem can't download some torrent program from LS CHL 500 (see pic this link
http://www.uppic.net/show/796085762196de9d3b9f94005d0a62f4) files "Yi San_10_DVD5.nrg" nothing happen not found pear and seed
I compare with down load from utorrent found 14 seed and 2 pear (see pic this link
http://www.uppic.net/show/a8bfa2c2d45f5bb77d4ec7f8a0c80254 ) please help and advice.
Thanks for your comments Colin. The only thing I have been disappointed about in this unit is the Torrent performance. Not only is the uploading of new torrents abysmal, I suspect the DL perfromance is affected by the ability to make connections.
Attention to being able to set UL and DL limits to individual Torrents, encryption, scheduling, and having the unit maintain settings when it is restarted so it doesn't change port, UL/DL limits or start all Torrents even when they have been paused would really enhance its performance................ any chance?
And of course, the all important question........... when will FW V1.08 (I assume?) be available?
It looks like the issue was a problem with the particular version of the Bittorrent client we were using, and possibly an incorrect configuration setting. Our development team knows about the issue now, thanks to your extraordinary patience with experimentation. Thanks for your help.
I'll forward your feature requests to our corporate office. The firmware should be available fairly soon, but as per usual, I cannot give an accurate estimate on a release date.
Colin
Last week I tried to download a torrent. The Drive showed zero connections. uTorrent immediately detected peers and intiated the download. It was only a small file (148MB) and uTorrent completed the download before the Buff even started. By next morning, UTorrent had seeded about 500x, and then, mysteriously, after mpre than 12 hours inactivity, the Buff started to download! Now, thats the same torrent file using the same tracker, and teh Drive, and uTorrent started at the same time.
I also noticed a similar thing a day or so ago when I noticed again that the Buff wouldn't UL/DL a torrent whilst uTorrent would, but they showed different numbers of Seeds and Leechers. Whilst Buffalo showed available peers it wouldn't connect. Hence I don't think this problem is restricted to uploading of new files.
I also suspect that the number of ongoing torrents may affect things. When there is a large number of active files, it seems the Buffalo won't accept new connections. It seems for example that with an UL limit of say 50KB/s it won't divide that bandwidth between say 25 connections and give some activity to each, it seems to want to give larger bandwidth to a smaller group, eg one connection of 20KB/s, one of 15, one of 10, one of 4.9, one of 0.1, whist uTorrent will have a more even spread of bandwidth. Maybe that's intended, maybe uTorrent has it wrong, but the effect with the Buffalo is that a file will sit there for hours or days with no activity even when it shows available peers.
I have also found in some instances that there will be a 'greedy' torrent that slowly edges out the other active connections and increases its bandwidth at the expense of others - eg, in the example above, the 20KB/s connection will increase to 45, leaving one connection fighting for the other 5KB/s whilst the others cease.Again, maybe this in intended, maybe not, but if you're trying to seed 5 files, and only one works, or if the same thing happens when downloading, it is very frustrating. It happens less when DL because bandwidth is geater, and there is a finite amount to DL so that when the torrent completes the DL, the capacity is avavilable for others, whilst with UL, there is no limit unless you choose one.
Of course, there is more information with uTorrent - you can see connections that are refused by the peer for example, so not all peers are able to make connections and that does explain some inactivity of a torrent when there are only a few peers.
I hope the new FW solves all these problems and gives us the Torrent function that is obviously in demand and that we get the overall unit performance that enhances Buffalo's reputation. I'd also like to be proud of my purchase and what it does for me.
Colin, any news of a fix for the Torrent function? It's getting on for a month and a half since you mentioned the cause had been identified, and not withstanding the team's involvement in other design and development work, they should recognise the ill feeling created by buying a 'turkey' that cannot perform as expected, and in the case of the torrent function, this unit would find it hard to escape the 'turkey' label.
For my own part, I don't use the Torrent function any more as the performance is so poor. As I specifically purchased this unit because of the Torrent function (as have many others), my frustration is easy to understand. If the bug fix is not going to be available very soon, I think your company owes me a refund, and I should like to discuss that matter.
As I have said, the only thing that disappoints is the Torrent non-functionality, but it was the only reason why I bought this unit rather than any of the many external drives on the market, many of which were significantly cheaper.
My drive was bought in April, and I experienced problems immediately. Nearly 3 months later, I still do not have the functionality expected.
Please understand that myself, like most other purchasers, simply want to use the unit in the way we epected to, and as described by your product literature. If we cannot use it in that way, it is somewhat redundant. So, either give us the unit you told us we would get, or give us a refund so we can buy a more suitable unit.
any news?
3 days since I asked
6 or 7 weeks since the problem was identifed
3 months since I bought a product that doesn't do what the manufacturers claim it does
not long before I ask for a full refund...
When we have to request that certain updates in firmware be coded in it is going to take time to prevent other bugs and issues arising.
Dustrega
I do indeed understand that it takes time to prevent bugs etc in new updates. It is a big pity your company didn't do this in the first place and actually marketed a product that performed as claimed.... ie, with a properly functioning Torrent facility.
I ask with the utmost respect that you continue to have patience
How much patience? I bought the product more than 3 months ago. It didn't work when I bought it, and it doesn't work now. MyTorrent work is still done by uTorrent - which cost nothing. However, I paid extra for an external harddrive specifically because itwas claimed to have a Torrent function. I had the choice of several other external harddrives of which the Buffalo was the most expensive. The only differences between the units was that some of the others were USB drives and had better transfer rates than the buffalo........ oh, and the VERY salient point that NONE of the others claimed to have a Torrent function. So, bearing in mind my present situation of using freeware uTorrent and a buffalo drive, I paid extra for the drive and got a lower transfer rate and still have to use uTorrent and tie up my PC - which was exactly what I was trying to avoid in buying a drive that was supposed to have a Torrent function that operated independently of a PC.
So, how much patience do you think I, and others who have bought a product that will never function properly in it's present state, should actually have? I'll tell you what. Let's give your company the opportunity to make amends and at the same time demonstrate it's patience. Why don't you refund my money, and work on fixing this problem according to how big a priority you think it should be, in order to make amends for either 1) not testing the product properly (I make an assumption that it was tested, but not adequately), or 2) bringing the product to market even though it was known to perform inadequately? Then, when you've fixed the problem, I will return your money.............. but I will hang on to it for the same time after you fix the product that you had my money before you fixed it. ie, if it takes you 6 months to fix the problem, I will return your money 6 months after I've verified the problem has been solved and the product works as expected. That seems fair to me, because whilst you've been paid for the units people and retailers bought, and you have full use of that revenue, we don't have full use of the product. So why don't we do that and see how patient you are in waiting to be able to use your money? It will also give you the chance to demonstrate that you are actually sorry and do appreciate the problem caused by selling us a product that doesn't work. Or, lets think of something else............. like, how about you act like a supermarket? You know, like those that promise if you don't like the product, they refund the money! Or if you find the same product cheaper, they refund twice the difference. Seeing as how I could've bought other drives for about half the price of yours, just refund me the price and I'll put up with using uTorrent and burning loads more electricity. I'm sure others will think these suggestions are fair. Certainly they're much fairer than selling a product that doesn't do as it is claimed, especially when extra is charged for that non-functioning extra. (All those with similar defective units should feel free to voice their opinion about these suggestions).
please do not threaten returning the product as it does not speed up the process.
Eerrrrm, who is threatening anything? I'm deadly serious. Unless you do something to facilitate correct functioning of this product very quickly, I WILL be pressing for a full refund. I am also serious about my suggestions above. Please raise them with the relevant peopleand get back to me. You could also advise what will speed the matter up? A 'suck site'. Reporting the matter to the Trading Standards Dept, or Office of Fair Trading, here in the UK, who have the power to order products to be withdrawn? Issuing a writ against the retailer who sold this product as you have admitted on this site that it doesn't work? (I can well imagine he will be very keen to sell your products in the future......), or writing to a few relevant publications?
Please tell me what will speed things up, and please also recognise that YOUR COMPANY is in the wrong here, and far from refusing to answer my question about when a fix will be available and doing so in a (perhaps inadvertent) patronising tone, you and the whole of buffalo company should be offering sincere apologies for the inconvience I and others have suffered, and craving our continued indulgence, because whilst we have products that don't function properly, you have had the revenue in full, had the full benefit of it, and used it to pay the employees, directors and shareholders.
Now, WHEN will this unit start working properly? And which of my suggestions above does Buffalo want to employ as a means to apologise? If you cannot answer these questions, please feel free to give me the contact details of the person who can. I can contact the CEO almost as easily as typing in this thread and honestly don't mind doing so to get answers.
I am deeply conserned about this post. I just purchased a LS-CHL 1TB drive and all I wanted it for was BT downloads. I upgraded it to the latest firmware. I currently use private trackers and utorrent. I have a 20mb cable connection and utorrent always gets a 1.2mb- 2mb download speed and 100 - 150k upload.
The performance of this drive it terrible when using torrents and that was the only reason I bought it. I have also tried normal trackers.
I have never got a download speed more than 250k and an upload of more than 20k. I am an it engineer and have all ports forwarded correctly.
What is the max speed these drives are rated to? has anyone got a donwload speed above this?
My down speed at best is about 1200 KB/s. My connection is 10/2. Upload is the problem here too. Really concerning refund also. Very dissapointed. srry bad english...
I have the LS CHL 1 TB version. From my point of view the torrent client is working fine, also when I am uploader on some trackers, so the torrent is initiated by me.
And speaking about speed, everything it's ok, same results like utorrent