Change order in queue for Seeding tasks

[DJ JB]

Sorry for this old bump. However, I would also be very interested to see it implemented to manually order seeding torrents the way we can order downloads (arrow button up/down).

Would be nice to see that in uTorrent 3.1 or 4.

[John Doer]

I like to share what I download up to a ratio (> 1) and then stop. This is so I can move the downloads elsewhere instead of copying them, and wasting disk space. I'd like to be able to prioritise seeding for the files that I want to use soon but it's impossible without stopping all other seeding torrents.

It would be great if there were two priority sequences in the one list (highest download and highest seed priorities are both 1) so it is clear they are separate. If a torrent goes from seeding back to downloading, it should retain its seeding priority when it has finished again.

[angmax22]

I agree that we should have a method of prioritizing our seeding tasks as we wish. I don't think this would be negative. I think this would benefit users more than hinder. For instance, I have several seeding tasks right now, but they are not in high demand and therefore are not being downloaded. They sit at the top of my seed queue doing nothing blocking other files from seeding when people are requesting those. If I were able to move them manually with the up/down arrows or set a rule that allows for files that can be completed faster to take priority, I would love the feature. As it is now, my seed queue is overloaded and and never finishes unless I manually stop each of the torrents to get the right ones going.

AngMax22

(Oh, and I really hope that no one comes along and tries to chastise for posting this because this feature has been requested consistantly since 2005 and no such improvement has been made that I am aware of. If you would like to respond to the forum postings, please be helpful instead of angry and bitter that someone posted. Being angry doesn't help anyone, but if you kindly point us in the right direction, more can be accomplished.)

[CAParkerCT]

Hi...

Apparently, I'm not alone in having wasted far too much time trying to figure out a way to prioritize seeding tasks, only to realize that this simple ability just isn't available, This, IMHO, is a basic BT concern, and it's lack is quite absurd! Whatever algorithm uTorrent currently uses to queue seeding tasks, users all have differing desires and needs. (While I used to seed to at least 200%, I now have to curb my bandwidth appetite due to ISP usage caps. but really want to at least be able to give as good as I get! And, along with being short on disc space, not being able to rename/move/tweak and burn my downloaded files until I'm done seeding is a major thorn in my side.)

If there's a coherent reason why uTorrent behaves the way it does, then please give us a way to override that behavior and choose our own seeding priorities, the same way we can while downloading. Good lord, this seems so basic I can't think of a reason this is such an issue, or problem just getting it done. While not a programmer (I'm a hardware-techie-type), it seems the coding would be fairly simple (mostly probably already done in the download queue module), and incredibly long overdue! Otherwise, minor issues notwithstanding, I love uTorrent, and don't want to search & experiment with other BT clients again.

In short...

USERS HAVE DIFFERING NEEDS & DESIRES, AND, FOR MANY OF US, THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE AND COMPLAINT! So, please, puleeze, pulEEZE... make SEED QUEUEING a priority. I hope to see it realized soon! Otherwise,... many thanx for UTorrent and all your (continuing) hard work... really do appreciate it!

[christopherreay]

I can support 2:1 upload ratio.

 

I think that anyone who is downloading more than the capacity to support a 1:1 upload ratio is being a bit naughty, but to be honest, bandwidth is so cheap nowdays for loads of people dont care anymore.

 

It is sad that I simply cannot support 2:1 upload ratio, even though I have the bandwidth to do many times over, because older files seem to be prioritised less than newer ones. I end up deleting the files off my harddrive before they have had any time on the wire. Im just talking about popular stuff.

 

I havent spent much time staring at the thing to figure out what the seeding "strategy" is, but My situation would be perfectly well suited to just seeding my oldest downloads until they reach their upload ratio target, and seeding in the same order as the downloads. It seems to me that no matter how clever you try to be about it there are:

 

1. "rare" torrents, low number of seeders, small swarm, that in general people want to seed because it has a real impact on the local swarm

2. "popular" torrents, massive numbers of seeders, huge swarms that people seed partly because they have to download something, and partly to just support the swarm for a week or month or two

 

I think any scheduler that is going to try and "analyse the numbers" and produce useful behaviour that is *not* paying attention to the "intent" of the user is going to be overly complex, hard to implement, bandwidth wasteful and still non-optimal.

 

Put together a list of "categories" of torrents, based on the intent of the user, and create separate seeding queues/strategy algorithms for each queue.

 

This still wouldnt solve my issue of "I have more than enough bandwidth to support a 2:1 upload ratio". 

If I had my torrents categorised as "popular, just watching" and "long term swarm support", i would certainly want my popular just watching torrents to just blast through in the same order I downloaded them, I mean 1000 peers is HUGE number. When the BT protocol was invented the internet was SO SLOW compared to now, the torrent clients should really become aware of their own success and stop pretending that swarms are pretty much all 30 guys on dialup. There is absolutely no need what so ever to be clever about "scheduling" between 10 torrents of 1GB, each with more than 1000 seeds in them already, when my upload bandwidth is set to 300kb/s, and by trying to be "clever" about it, it just creates pointless IP churn and leaves gaps in silly places