How to organise which torrents go in which folder - some help please

[bigmog01]

Hi All,

I've looked at the FAQs and I'm a little confused with all the new options for default folders. I'm not sure if all of the items below are possible, but I'm sure someone on this forum can tell me! What I want to be able to do is:

(1) All .torrent files and .ut! files to go in folders specific to the label

I label all xxxSeries1Episode1,2,3,etc downloads as xxx. Whilst the torrent is downloading, I'd like the individual .torrent files to go in a folder called C:\Downloads\Torrents\xxx\, and also the incomplete data files to be put in the same folder.

(2) All completed data files to go in a different folder

Once the torrent has finished downloading, I'd like the resultant (complete) data files to go in a different place, such as C:\Downloads\Completed Torrents\xxx\.

(3) Once I've completed my seeding goal (which I set at 150%, as I use a very forgiving ISP), I'd like the .torrent file deleted so that I don't seed it any more.

(4)Whilst downloading, I'd like to make sure that the upload speed does not exceed the download speed (per file), which it does at the moment on almost all of my files. I've got no problem with seeding, but I'd like to ensure that my bandwidth is working in my favour!

As I said, I'm not sure how much of the above is actually possible, but I would appreciate your help in letting me know what is possible, and how to go about it.

Thanks

[Ultima]

1) Not possible.

2) Preferences > Downloads > Move completed downloads to

3) Not possible, and never gonna happen.

4) Never gonna happen. If you want everything in your favor only, then don't use P2P, period.

[bigmog01]

Hi, Ultima and thanks for your reply.

If you want everything in your favor only, then don't use P2P, period

Errr.... OK, but must you be so brusque?. I use ADSL24 as my ISP and, whilst they have a massive 330G allowance per month, I'm also sharing the connection with 2 other people via wireless. As the max download speed we get is about 3.5Mbps (due to a long distance from exchange and poor wiring to our BT switchbox), and the max upload is considerably less, our connection is pretty-much useless for anything else whilst uploading P2P data.

Of course I do utilise the scheduler, and that helps no end, but I'd still like the chance to be able to maximise my bandwidth. Ideally, I'd seed til the cows come home but, whilst possible, it's just not practical.

I'd hazard a guess that there may be other users of uTorrent (and all the other clients), who feel the same way as I do: I have no problem with seeding, but why can't I say to other clients "look, you can have as much data from me as you want, but please don't take it from me faster than I'm getting it"?

I think that the whole bittorrent format is a wonderful way of sharing data, uTorrent in particular is a very nice client, and this (and other) forums are an extremely useful resource. Bbut please don't paint me as a villain just because I'm suggesting that there may be a download/upload ratio that IMHO is perhaps fairer. I'm just an average user of uTorrent, and I don't think my post deserved the attitude you gave.

Anyway, thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my post.

Let's be friends?

[JethroUK]

On the subject of file 'sharing'

originally we used to use ftp clients to share, and to make these fair these were governed by a 'ratios' e.g. 1:2 meant to download 1 byte you had to upload 2

In the interest of the survival/development of file sharing it would be a good idea for utorrent to impose at least 1:1 ratio such that people must upload at least as much as they download to prevent leeches who don't contribute anything towards the whole file sharing deal

[Ultima]

As much as we'd like for everyone to share to at least a 1:1 ratio, forcing it is just not gonna happen.

@bigmog01: If you want it to limit the upload rate to at most your download rate, then your download rate should behave identically in that the download rate should get limited by the upload rate's speed. Otherwise, it's not fair to anyone else either.

Regarding the aggressiveness... Periodically, my patience gets magically renewed, but erm, I guess your post caught me at a time when my patience was drained pretty low answering questions. I suppose it comes with the territory (providing support and all), but at this rate, I'm making excuses more than anything, so I'll shut up now

[bigmog01]

Hi Ultima -sorry was offline for a while and only just got to re-read this post. Thanks for your reply, and I hope you're to waving your magic patience wand with renewed vigour!!!

Cheers for answering, some people wouldn't have even bothered.

[Switeck]

Just please understand we can't all have fast download speeds at once, and if yours is...it's coming at the expense of someone else. Maybe even multiple people.

However fast or slow your download is, the only way you can "lose" is if the torrent doesn't finish at all. And there's lots of cheaters out there that probably wouldn't mind if you don't complete the torrent...just so long as they complete it first! And there's lots of ISPs out there which would ban outright BitTorrent use if they didn't think the public outcry would be too hard on their bottom line. There's companies dedicated to the destruction of BitTorrent -- via poisoning, fake torrents, and cease-and-desist letters. ...And the general public who has come to regard us as the "bad guys".

Then there's just us...who complain from time to time that people don't share enough.

Wanna be on the winning side?

I'm not sure at the moment who it'll be.

But how are you going to cast your vote?

[bigmog01]

Hi and thanks for the reply.

Ok, here's my 10cent's worth:

the only way you can "lose" is if the torrent doesn't finish at all.

Yes, I had this problem once, with a 4.5G download that went to 9G before it decided not to finish. My first (and hopefully only) experience of a poisoned torrent.

and if your [download speed] is [fast]...it's coming at the expense of someone else. Maybe even multiple people.

Hmm, not sure that 'expense' is the right word. If I'm getting fast downloads, it (usually) means that there are a lot of people seeding that torrent. And this is how it should be. And the faster I download it, the faster I become one of those seeds. And don't forget that I set my seed ratio at 150%, so I'm more than 'doing my bit' (50% more, to be exact!)

And there's lots of ISPs out there which would ban outright BitTorrent use if they didn't think the public outcry would be too hard on their bottom line

Yes, and my first ISP (Tiscali) are definitely one of them. But there's also an increasing number who know that one of the best ways of getting and retaining customers is to publicly state they don't throttle or block certain apps, which is another way of (tacitly) saying they see nothing wrong with legal torrent and P2P sites. My ISP is ADSL24, who resell entanet, and they allow me a 330G limit per month - 30G of that during peak. I'm a musician and I work nights, so before I go to my gig, I load up uTorrent and let it run. All off-peak, and I'll seed 'til 2 or 3am.

BUT, the main reason I use torrent sites is (like, I guess, most people) to download stuff I want, and only then will I want to pass it on to someone else by seeding. So if I could make sure that my bandwidth was being used 50/50 for downloading/seeding, then I win and the clients using me as a seed win. Or at least that's the way I see it.

I understand that this will forever be a contentious issue, and maybe there's no one right answer. I'm pretty happy to go with the status quo, so I'm not going to stop downloading and, therefore, I'm not going to stop seeding. I'm just looking for Shangri-la, I guess

[Switeck]

Expense really is the right word because it means someone's leaving their computer on (though they may be using it for other things at the same time) and tying up a significant portion of their max upload speed so others can download the torrent. Seeding only seems "efficient" in BitTorrent clients because most people don't have LONG lists of torrents they're trying to download.

BitComet is a notoriously bad client for seeding...it may be uploading at 30+ KiloBYTES/sec, but because it's splitting that upload speed between potentially 60+ peers at once it seldom completely uploads even a single piece of a large torrent. (4 MB piece size takes a long time at <0.5 KiloBYTES/sec.)

[bigmog01]

Expense really is the right word because it means someone's....tying up a significant portion of their max upload speed so others can download the torrent.

I see the point you're making, but my point is that, if you've got uTorrent running and you've got data to seed, it's your choice. My internet use is mainly for downloading (not just torrents, but program data, upgrades and, of course, web pages). If I'm uploading something other than torrent data, I can chose to pause uTorrent, upload whatever, then resume my torrent client. I totally agree that I must seed if I'm going to use a torrent client, but I can choose not to, just by switching it off.

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of all the data ratios that uTorrent continually calculates, but I'm sure that if everyone subscribed to my way of thinking, their bandwidth would be maximised. Or maybe I'm wrong??

[Ultima]

Entirely wrong. If everyone limited their upload rate to 1KiB/s (just as an example), then even if there were 1000 peers on the swarm, the maximum total download speed is 1000KiB/s for all peers in the swarm, or an average of 1KiB/s download per peer. Definitely not maximizing your bandwidth. If everyone limited their upload rates [the way you're requesting -- limit based on download rate], there'd be a cascading effect where the download slows down because there's less upload bandwidth available in the swarm overall. From that, it'll tumble down further because lowered download rates means lowered upload rates (with your request). It'll keep droppping until everything goes to 0KiB/s. Read: bad.

Edit: Eh, added the [the way you're requesting -- limit based on download rate] bit.

[Switeck]

I see the point you're making, but my point is that, if you've got uTorrent running and you've got data to seed, it's your choice.

For the numerous people on private trackers, seeding is not a choice...they either seed or get banned.

Ultima meant if everyone limited their upload rate really low. Limiting one's upload rate to no more than the sustainable upload amount for your connection...is almost a REQUIRED thing for µTorrent to run smoothly!

Also, the combined download speed for a torrent is almost always LESS than the combined upload speed for a torrent. Upload packets get lost, or are duplicated by other uploaders, errors occur in sending and receiving, and lastly hostiles exist which do almost everything they can to sabotage the torrent.

So if everyone limited their upload rate to 1KiB/s with 1000 peers present in the swarm, then probably only a few peers would see download speeds above 1KiB/s...while many peers would see download speeds of 0KiB/s for much of the time. That's what I mean by "at the expense of someone else"...whoever is downloading faster than they are uploading are not always doing so because of seeds -- sometimes it's because other peers are getting little in return for what they're giving. It's only a bad thing if they don't seed back at least to 1:1 ratio...because sustaining a torrent for a long time even if slowly is worth more than making it fast for a short time.

[Ultima]

Ultima meant if everyone limited their upload rate really low.

Sorta I was actually referring to the request to limit the upload rate to at most the download rate (but forgot to refer to that). We are still talking about that, right?