Ubuntu QA:
BlogBrainstormPackage status
Log in
Ubuntu QA
The Ubuntu community has contributed 13963 ideas, 66846 comments, 1291785 votes

Idea #8186: Better BitTorrent Client ( Deluge vs. Transmission)



up
246
down
Written by ubuntu4fun the 7 May 08 at 12:31. Category: Internet & Networking.
Related to: Nothing/Others. Status: New
Description
EDIT:
The idea was updated with a test of Bitswash - a new BT client for Ubuntu?

http://getdeb.net/app/Bitswash

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:

Bitswash has the best features of the two previously tested applications: is FASTER than Deluge, and merely as LIGHTWEIGHT and SMALL as Transmission. Furthermore, it has pretty good and well looking interface.
Definitely, You should test it.
_______________________________________

I made some comparisons of the two popular BitTorrent clients for GNOME: Transmission and Deluge, using different versions of Ubuntu (based) distros, Fedora (unstable) and Mandriva. The tests conclusions are as follows:

Deluge is always at least twice as faster as Transmission and more stable while consuming about twice as much RAM.
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

For example, a TEST made on Xubuntu 8.04 with all the updates installed.
Download time in both cases: 6 minutes.

Transmission version 1.06
(the results for version 1.11 on Fedora were similar).
Downloaded 5,3 MB of data, average memory usage: 9,3 MB.

Deluge 0.5.9.0
Downloaded 31,6 MB of data(!), average memory usage: 19,6 MB.


Deluge
- is not only about 6 times faster than Transmission,
- but is also much more stable,
- feature-rich,
- having a lot of useful plugins,
- faster developed,
- similar to uTorrent - most popular BT client in Windows,
- multiplatform (it makes switching to Ubuntu a lot easier),
- and has much better and user-friendly interface (just compare some screenshots from the homepage).

Some other comparison:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=741482

Visit Deluge homepage for more details about its features:
http://deluge-torrent.org/about.php

Deluge is more mature project and despite being older than Transmission has less bugs (!) reported in Launchpad (Deluge - 51, Transmission - 54).

You can download latest Deluge packages for Ubuntu Hardy and Gusty here:
http://getdeb.net/app/Deluge


RECOMMENDATIONS:
__________________
1. Download Deluge and try it by yourself with different torrents and different systems.

2. Deluge should be default BT client in Ubuntu (GNOME) as it is much better in most cases than Transmission.

3. Transmission as lightweight when it comes to system resources usage should stay default BT client in Xubuntu (XFCE).

4. Ubuntu Developers should choose best tools as a default applications for the distribution.
______


Many Ubuntu Brainstorm users ARE COMPLAINING about Transmission. For example:

1. "The torrent client default Ubuntu, it is too basic and limited, and it's not very flexible. It could be improved in a lot of areas."

2. "The version of Transmission for Mac OS X has more options than the version for Linux.(...)
Some options not available for Linux users:
* Downloading and seeding queues
* Basic scheduling
* Auto-seeding options
* Customizable toolbar
* Advanced progress box"

3. "No encyption in Transmission".

4. "we cannot queue torrent files, we can only download multiple torrents simultaneously. We should be able to set the number of active torrent downloads to a customizable number (i.e. 1)"

5."When I shut down my PC with Transmission running (...), at the restart Transmission has to recheck all my torrents, that is pretty annoying especially with big torrents."

6. "Fix adding torrents to transmission from firefox".

7. "In the menu, "Transmission" should be "Transmission BitTorrent client"

And so on.
____

!!! As you can see it is NOT duplicate of the idea: "idea #6076: Replace Transmission with Deluge"
because the description and conclusions are much deeper and better explained.
_______

UPDATE:
_______

Few minutes ago a new BT Cient was added to the GetDeb.net.
I decided to download it immediately and quickly update my tests. The application is called Bitswash.

From the homepage:
"Bitswash is a bittorrent client built on crossplatform library wxWidgets, libtorrent and boost library. It supports multiple torrent downloading, automatic queue management, protocol encryption, peer exchange, upnp, natpmp, lsd, and IP and file filtering."

You can grab Ubuntu Hardy and Gusty packages here:

http://getdeb.net/app/Bitswash

I haven't got enough time to take a deeper look at its features and stability but I did the same test as ABOVE on the same system.
I was AMAZED about the RESULTS:

Bitswash 0.0.6
Downloaded 36,17 MB (!!!), average memory usage: 12,4 MB (!!!).

See ABOVE for the results for Deluge and Transmission.

Bitswash - a new BT client for Ubuntu?
Tags: bittorent

Attachments
forum Ubuntuforums.org thread #741482


Duplicates


Comments
Auzy wrote on the 7 May 08 at 15:26
The question is, did you set your total connections, etc the same in both apps?

I dont use either, but, I'm just curious
having more outgoing connections in 1 may make a massive difference.

Also, how did you test your memory. using a proper profiling tool, or a guesstimate.


Anyone willing to confirm these results.

One theory why transmission may be slower as transmission was blacklisted ages ago from clients because it did some pretty braindead stuff protocol wise.. But then again, make sure your connections are the same. Also, did you have Distributed hash tables enabled on both apps?

Auzy wrote on the 7 May 08 at 15:28
Btw, I'm not asking because I want to make you look bad or anything, I just need to ensure its a fair test before I do anything..

I'd also like to know who performed the test..

Ape wrote on the 7 May 08 at 15:51
What about Azureus that comes with a wider selection of features?

ubuntu4fun wrote on the 7 May 08 at 16:52
@Auzy

I used default settings of each BT client assuming that the developers know what is the best configuration for their application for most users.

There is only few users who change the default settings (excluding destination folder) in BT clients, so I think the test is valid (from practical point of view not theoretical one).

To measure memory usage I used Gnome System Monitor.

Bitswash BT I discovered today by chance so it needs more testing.

My only intention in this test/comparison of the features was to make Ubuntu better as it is the system I use and keep promoting among my friends.

Rabbid wrote on the 7 May 08 at 17:23
Transmission is awesome IMO.

vexorian wrote on the 7 May 08 at 18:08
If it is not broken not fix it.

I think transmission is good and stable enough.

Other users can always install other clients if they want.

ubuntu4fun wrote on the 7 May 08 at 19:00
@ vexorian

"If it is not broken not fix it."

For sure, Transmission is NOT perfect application.

There is a proverb which says that the good is not an enemy of the BETTER. IMHO, Ubuntu should go this way in order to keep its position in the world of Linux.

zsolt320i wrote on the 7 May 08 at 20:47
Today i installed bitswash, i i have to say that is ok, but it has big lack: you can not set the dowload/upload limit!!!

lynx wrote on the 7 May 08 at 22:03
zsolt320i, using Bitswash 0.0.6 on Ubuntu Hardy (64 bits) i can see:

global setting:
Preferences >> Connections >> Limits
- Download Rate Limit
- Upload Rate Limit

... or per torrent:
Preferences >> Torrents
- Download Rate Limit
- Upload Rate Limit

Auzy wrote on the 8 May 08 at 01:20
The best Defaults though vary depending on the connection. (if you have fios, you want more connections for instance). Its not a matter of them picking the best connection settings, peoples best settings vary (with azureus, the settings it gives me are crap even with the wizard, and I need to change them). Please give them both the same connection settings and rebenchmark

ubuntu4fun wrote on the 12 May 08 at 17:57
UPDATE (Transmission v.1.20 introduced):

Test time: 16:00 min
Torrent source: http://linuxmint.de/downloads.html

*****Transmission v. 1.20
average memory usage (lower=better): 11.4 MB (winner),
Downloaded (more=better): 36.7 MB of data

******Deluge v. 0.5.9.0
average memory usage: 19.1 MB. (+ about 4% higher CPU usage)
Downloaded: 117.5 MB.

******Bitswash v. 0.0.6
average memory usage: 12.3 MB,
Downloaded: 171 MB (WINNER).


Stability (pausing/resuming/restarting/adding new downloads):
1. Deluge;
2. Transmission;
3. Bitswash.

All in all, IMHO Deluge is best for now.




Nait wrote on the 16 May 08 at 20:04
I like qbittorrent http://qbittorrent.sourceforge.net/ ..it's fast and have a very handy integrated search. Unfortunately I haven't benchmarked it.

opogon1 wrote on the 24 Jun 08 at 04:31
Thanks guys, I was really unhappy with Transmission, I installed Deluge and I'm much happier, seems my downloads are working twice as fast as they were before. I recommend everyone at least try Deluge.

rockus wrote on the 20 Jul 08 at 06:54
I believe Ubuntu should make Deluge the default client instead of Transmission. Deluge is light like Transmission and has many many more features while being user friendly. Transmission seems to have bias towards the Mac with their feature list. Why should we use a second fiddle software while we can have something better? Also, Deluge is nearing the 1.0.0 release (currently on RC2), so this would be the best time to incorporate this in Intrepid.

crhylove wrote on the 18 Aug 08 at 21:00
I agree with the initial post. Bitswash seems much better than the other two, and also carefully mirrors utorrent in design, which can only be a very, very good thing. Can we get Canonical behind a truly decent torrent app please?

mickstephenson wrote on the 9 Sep 08 at 20:11
These tests are no longer relevant as Deluge is releasing a completely new verion, also Ubuntu should mirror gnome as closely as possible imho, and programs written in wxwidgets are a no no for me, and a complete deal breaker unless the program is vastly superior to a one written in gtk. eg. OpenOffice and Firefox, but nothing else, and I personally think that Ubuntu should go with Epiphany they get webkit up and running wiht it.


Post your comment