Cor'eCor'e Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Discrepancy in sizes of partial files when moving over BT partial data files, am i losing data? Please refer to picture, the files are exactly the same files but uT reports them as much smaller!!(Um, where is the option to attach files to posts on this forum?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 You use tags. Partial files are precisely that. If you are on NTFS then it is likely the files are sparse. I would recommend doing this before trying to upload your pictures. Right click on the files, go to properties, See where it says "file size" and "file size on disk". I bet file size on disk corresponds to uT's "complete" number, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 What? How? I want to Attach a jpg, not reference a .jpg uploaded somewhere on the web... how does one use img tags to Attach a jpg into a post? Please inform me. =)Um, sparse == yes, ntfs == yes, but i'm not talking about the complete size(s), i'm talking about the done size(s). I think i need to show a picture of the issue because i think you're not yet 'seeing' the size mismatches i'm taking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 You don't attach on this forum. How I post pictures on this forum.If the file size on disk matches the "completed" in uT's main torrent pane I know exactly what you're talking about and there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 imagehack links: http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6660/sizesdonotmatchsb6.pngPlease REread the post and take a good look at the image posted, look forward to more help. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 ... you're not saving to the same files? I also don't see why you posted that azureus screenshot, it shows you prioritize first and last pieces, which is also an option in uT. I can't see whether or not you have files skipped among that pack in either client, or if it's even the same pack as azureus doesn't show the vital stats. I'm not sure how azureus does partial pieces/files but I know when there are pieces in the Pieces tab for uT that means the data isn't dumped to disk yet which is why those pieces aren't blue and could explain the extra pieces in Azureus if that was your source.Which client were you moving FROM? I presume azureus has analogous function to "force recheck"... I'd imagine whichever is the TO client needs a recheck after of course you dump completed pieces in the FROM client to disk. uT allows you to dump incomplete pieces to disk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @jewelishevan: Quote from post #1: "Please refer to picture, the files are exactly the same files but uT reports them as much smaller!!"... Really, i mean EXACTLY THE SAME FILES... they are exact binary copies made by WinXP cut&paste. Both P2P programs have no DLs or ULs going on, they are stopped, neither program is still re-checking the hashes, both are just sitting there reporting different sizes. Why?My guess is uTorrent either throws file data away or fails to report partial data blocks... i would like some help on resolving this issue before i move BT files over to uT and possibly lose a ton of data doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 ... you're not saving to the same files? I also don't see why you posted that azureus screenshot, it shows you prioritize first and last pieces, which is also an option in uT. I can't see whether or not you have files skipped among that pack in either client, or if it's even the same pack as azureus doesn't show the vital stats. I'm not sure how azureus does partial pieces/files but I know when there are pieces in the Pieces tab for uT that means the data isn't dumped to disk yet which is why those pieces aren't blue and could explain the extra pieces in Azureus if that was your source.Which client were you moving FROM? I presume azureus has analogous function to "force recheck"... I'd imagine whichever is the TO client needs a recheck after of course you dump completed pieces in the FROM client to disk. uT allows you to dump incomplete pieces to disk.Highlighting added. You didn't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @jewelsheavan: Look, the file data never left the disk, it does not seem a matter of data getting "dumped to disk", the files were copied over to uT's folder and the torrent added and pointed to the copied data files and forced re-checked, that's all. The .torrent file is the exact same too in case you ask. The two programs see these data files differently, and i'm asking WHY -- because i see a ton of data loss moving BTs to uTorrent from Azureus.You can understand now? How does your question(s) help the issue this thread addresses?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 1) Partial data blocks are always lost.2) If one of them is storing files in a "compact" fashion (not sparse files), then it'll totally screw the checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @Firon: Thank you! I see i will lose tons of data moving over to uTorrent, so i won't do that. The image i posted shows just what you said and i supposed was occurring, partial data blocks are thrown out in the re-check, but i hoped that uTorrent was just displaying that, not actually ignoring the partial block data from files.(!)Not compact, sparse, the files were copied as such and remained as such throughout the transfer from Azureus -> uTorrent. But thanks for the warning there too!Any hope of finding a way that i will not lose a BT file's partial data blocks on moving to uTorrent? Feature Request? =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 There's just no way to transfer partial blocks. A hashcheck will ignore all partial blocks simply because there's no way to verify a partial block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @Firon: It would seem that the P2P program i used to start these BTs (in this case Azureus) is keeping track of these partial blocks, does uTorrent only download in whole blocks? or are block sizes selectable during checks? or can i have the BitTorrent Client only download the partial blocks to complete current partial blocks so i may move incomplete BT files over to uT without any partial blocks left in them to lose?? Kinda like a priority at the block level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 It'll happen when transferring from any client to any client. You can even force a re-check within the same client and partial blocks get discarded.You can't force the client to finish the partial blocks and only those. Just finish the torrent in az then move it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @Firon: Are u serious? If i do a forced re-check i'll lose data?(!!) Holy Crap!Something is taking care of partial blocks in the BT Client, do you suspect that all BT clients work the same in this regard or do you know uT handles partial blocks any differently than any other BT Client? I see Azureus handling this pretty well, but i will look much closer at this, i wonder now if partial block data is preserved from session to session by BT Clients the same or just as implemented by programmer/designer...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Clients preserve partial blocks from session to session (since they know what was and wasn't downloaded, though they don't know if it's any good yet), but you can't transfer this across clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jewelisheaven Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 ... you're not getting it. Unless pieces are complete (and on disk) you will not see it. You would see the same discrepancy in the reverse case. If you started in uT(FROM), and as I said saw INCOMPLETE pieces in the Pieces tab... That data is not in the file, therefore you would have % regression when opening it in Azureus (TO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 @Cor'eCor'e: µTorrent does handle partial pieces by storing them in the partfile. Clients store partial pieces in different ways, so they're incompatible (and thus, as Firon says, you can't transfer partial pieces between clients). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 @ultima: Thank you, all good here then, thank you too Firon for giving time and explanation. I would like to use uT since it's beginning to look like it fits the needs i have as a BitTorrent client, even if i did start with Shareaza & Azureus. (uT may be a commercial free-for-now product, but Az just loads too much into its Client - meaning mostly Vuze - and has no scheduler. While Shareaza has flopped its support of BTs altogether in its newest WinXP releases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Well, as far as I know, Vuze can be disabled in Azureus 3.x to make it look/feel/act like Azureus 2.x, so I don't think that counts as a good reason to switch clients Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cor'eCor'e Posted January 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 @Ultima: Yes it can be, it is called Azureus 'Classic', but without Vuze it looks just like u... (!) Anyhow, it still does not have the scheduler. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.