KeebMeister Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Hey, I'm a new convert to this client. It's an amazing byte-sized program that isn't overbearing on file associations. Anyway, I'm sad to say that I still use the G3 Torrent/Rufus Client for an essential feature. It lets you choose whether you want to download parts of a multifile torrent in custom order or randomly. Of course, you can do this manually, but this is essentially why I like G3/Rufus. It's nice to watch series of movies/shows in order while they're downloading rather than waiting for the 10GB file to finish to watch it. Remember, this doesn't stop the client from downloading the other files, but puts a priority on the order of files. I think that's a great feature, and it should be done with more clients like G3.Still, utorrent (sorry, i can't find the "mu" key) is my default torrent client. It will become my ONLY client if the feature becomes implemented. Also, meters indicating Up/Down speed would be nice, but that's not the issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 µ:Alt 0181 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeebMeister Posted October 29, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 wow, thanks. µTorrent it is from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcorban Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 While this sounds like a nice feature, it, along with the current ability to pick and choose files from torrents would seem in theory to be detrimental to the overall health of the swarm. While you would prefer pieces of "episode 1", the swarm may better benefit if you received a piece from a different file. What if everyone in the swarm prioritized the same file? What if everyone selected a different file to download and blocked the rest of the files?I am definitely not against this feature. I use it frequently. Also, it is really too late to do anything about this as most of the popular clients already have the ability to prioritize. I am just wondering if allowing tinkering of this sort by mere mortals negatively impacts bittorrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurtlesRock Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 Well, as you said, allowing people to download only certain files in a multi-file torrent affects the health of the swarm, so why allow that? Sure, this type of thing could lead to abuse, but that would mean EVERYONE on that torrent would have to do it to make it a very bad thing to have. And I highly doubt that everyone on that particular client would do the exact same thing. Remember, uTorrent is just a tool. It's the person wielding the tool that decides to use it for good or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeebMeister Posted November 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 dcorban, I think you know what I mean. But, just to clear things up, I'm suggesting a feature that just PRIORITIZES files in a certain order. I don't mean the feature blocks out other files completely. Is this negative to the swarm? Not necessarily. It DOES prioritize a file, but if it can't find the pieces, it'll move on. If you've ever used G3 or Rufus, and you used this feature, you'll notice that the other files are still being downloaded. In my experience, I've had no problem uploading with this feauture on and the swarm usually doesn't suffer as long as there are seeders. In fact, if everyone used this feature, files could theoretically be downloaded faster because peers will upload those same pieces to achieve the same goal of prioritized downloading. It's a beautiful feature, IMO. Of course, I might be wrong about faster downloading with the logic of peers uploading those pieces.Also, if you REALLY wanted to get files in order, it can be done manually, by saying you do not want to download certain files. Then you turn on the latter files as the former finishes. In this case, it is definitely not good for the swarm.I believe the feature request is valid, and many people will benefit, such as those downloading a batch "Anime" torrent. They'll be able to watch episodes in order WHILE the torrent is still active. Be the judge, but I think it would be an invaluable addition that would attract many users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eviljolly Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 µ:Alt 0181Alt 230 also works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayers Posted November 4, 2005 Report Share Posted November 4, 2005 KeebMeister, you obviously realize that the nature of the protocol makes distribution of pieces a somewhat random behaviour. Seeing that prioritization is in no way a guarantee to receive files in the order specified, wouldn't the current high/normal/low priority be sufficient? To break this down to individual files would be a fine grain that would probably be lost in bittorrents chaotic exchanges.In fact, if everyone used this feature, files could theoretically be downloaded faster because peers will upload those same pieces to achieve the same goal of prioritized downloading.I disagree with that statement. What you might not realize is that any prioritization tends to INCREASE the total time it takes you to complete the torrent fully. It is the randomness that creates higher availability even if there aren't seeders. And higher availability reduces total download time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeebMeister Posted November 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Ok, that's fine. Maybe you are correct with the total time increase. Anyway, I KNOW it does not gaurantee file order. That's fine. However, it will try to get those pieces and then move on if the pieces aren't there. The advantage over high/normal/low is that you can have episode 1 of a certain series in higher priority than episode 2, but that's higher than episode 3, and so on. High/normal/low lacks sufficiency in that respect. It's simply a convenience, and it's nice when you can watch a series and still leave on bittorrent. This may not be too healthy in low seed/leech ratio torrents, but if everyone used that method and someone has episode 1 done, people can get that episode faster. Don't quote me on that though, because I'm not entirely sure. In any case, it's a great convenience, and if the high/normal/low feature is available, why not take a step further in prioritizing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted November 14, 2005 Report Share Posted November 14, 2005 Convinient maybe, but not feasible while keeping torrent healthy at all.Prioritizing certain files (read: certain pieces) would take much, much more to grab any other file effectivelly killing the entire effective method BT uses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeebMeister Posted November 15, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 True, it may not keep a torrent all to healthy if EVERYONE used it. However, that's only an extreme case. I think it should be added as a replacement to the high/normal/low priority to files within a torrent. This is simply a great way to watch or use files while keeping the torrent active rather than waiting until the entire torrent finished to watch or use the files. When you start downloading large series that go over 6 GB in size, it's a great convenience. Plus, it relieves us impatient people who want to watch shows asap. This was a groundbreaking feature in G3 and I'd use that torrent app if it weren't for the bugs and being a bloated resource hog that locks up the computer while checking files. Again, it should be an OPTION, meaning that right from the start of a batch torrent, the app should ask whether you want the files in custom order or random order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 Why wouldn't everyone use it ? A feature that benfits you and you wouldnt use it just because it might abuse others ? The other way around is usualy the case.Makes sense that G3 had this feature.. That client was just abuse-galore for the protocol and community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeebMeister Posted November 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Everyone MIGHT use it, but that's if EVERYONE on the torrent had µTorrent (assuming this might be added) or G3. Anyway, it's not like you can't abuse the feature you have right now by selecting not to download any of the other files in a multi-file torrent and FORCING an ordered download. Which is the lesser evil? You tell me.Cheers,KeebaLeebaDDP.S. I'm not trying to flame, but this is potentially turning into a heated discussion. I'm just rooting (I hope you're not from Australia) to add this feature by arguing for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.