zebulon Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Sometimes, I want to help seeding a torrent containing several files, but if they're scattered on different drives / partitions, I usually renounce because it can be a pain in the ass making room and gathering them. So basically, I'd like to say to µTorrent : (checkbox "virtual directory"), create a virtual directory named "My.Collection.Of.Files" and point the client to every drive / partition necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinop Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 or just be able to set location of each file individually, which has already been requested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebulon Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Ah, OK... Thanks for the info EDIT: I can't find the thread you're referring to. Was the request taken into account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 ahhh, look under retarget files or somethen like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 You are aware windows does not currently have virtual folders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebulon Posted March 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 @chaosblade: and how does it make impossible to implement the feature in µTorrent? It wouldn't be up to the OS to do the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaosblade Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Are you suggesting uTorrent implement a new internal filesystem then?Or perheps implement an SQL-like engine to do those metadata-searching that are virtual folders?Because that wont happen anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinop Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 zebulon isn't proposing anything so grand, just that when you point it to 'virtual directory 1' it knows to look in actual directory 1, 2, and 3 for matching fileshowever as files often get renamed, being able to set location of each file individually would be more flexiblehowever this has already been proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 many times, actually im surprised this havent been closed yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Have a look at junction.exe over at www.sysinternals.com. It's not that hard to do exactly what you want with it, but it is a command line app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebulon Posted March 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 The Mighty Buzzard: thanks for the tip Unfortunately, my drives are in FAT32... Baaaah, I'll wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Great jumping horned toads, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueStar Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Implementing a sort of virtual folders using shortcuts would probably reduce the implementation complexity, still might be tricky though. It would actually work pretty well since all it has to do is have the shortcut named as the file, then all uTorrent has to do is recognize it is a shortcut and lookup the referenced file and update the torrent's file targets.@Buzzard I could ask the same thing about NTFS on home computers. Unless you have a ton of files open for writing, having a journalized FS for the sake of having a journalized FS doesn't really offer any real advantage. Most programs just "bite the bullet" if you can even call it that and backup volatile data. Chkdisk files are usually pretty close to anything that might be lost. For most other lost files there is Restoration. Yeah, I know NTFS is a little safer, but considering how many crashes I've had, I've lost very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 I can't say I've been as lucky, I have lost a LOT of data on FAT32, and it's really pissed me off. I haven't lost anything on NTFS, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueStar Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 I've seriously lost a lot more time & data due to bad/tempermental USB controllers on most of the (semi-modern) motherboards I've ever owned. Anyway, is anyone else interested in this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Buzzard Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Sounds interesting enough to me, on account of being a big fan of links in *nix, but I'm neither much of a filesystem hacker nor a gui guy so anything I built to make it easier would be much uglier and much clunkier than something made by someone who was already good at such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.