5 ms·
Both are built on Rasterbar-libtorrent and should provide equal performance if configured the same, which I would definitely see as a goal. Feature wise, PicoT
by viktorelofsson 11y ago
Both are built on Rasterbar-libtorrent and should provide equal performance if configured the same, which I would definitely see as a goal.
Feature wise, PicoTorrent is lacking. Most popular features will be implemented, along with a plugin API. Right now, nothing more than the basics is implemented.
I'll try to put this, along with other information, in a FAQ asap.
- aroch 11y ago>Both are built on Rasterbar-libtorrent and should provide equal performance if configured the same Eh...Deluge has made a number of changes to libtorrent that aren't replicable solely by config tweaks. Such as lying about what pieces that client currently has, lying about connections and others in order to get the tracker to assign more peers and increase per-peer connections. Deluge also abuses the ever-loving-crap out of memory, since it doesn't use the system memory manager and, at least last I looked, their home built caching system was horribly broken (that is, they goto-failed their own manager) which leads to horrible flush to disk scenarios that kill speeds.
- viktorelofsson 11y agoInteresting! I did not know this. If their tweaks work, I guess Deluge may have a performance advantage. We follow the latest vanilla libtorrent sources (not bound by releases), and try to keep our C++ as close to the Windows API as possible. The only dependency we have is libtorrent (plus Boost and OpenSSL since libtorrent depends on those).