Deletion of anything previously marked as wanted should be user-explicit. I guess the open question is how to allocate the space necessary to store the chunks that cross file boundaries, and though everyone seems to agree that doing it in. For qbt which insists on being a gui for libtorrent, I just proposed some solutions above.
I still don't know if the. I switched to transmission on linux and utorrent on windows because of this issue right here. I'm fed up with it. I think you misunderstood what I meant by partial downloads.
I was talking about particular files I deselect from a torrent that has multiple files, not the entire torrent.
Nevertheless, I'd be happy if qbt was to ask me about deleting those files as long as it deletes the bloody things; don't just put them silently in a folder that I can't even see by default. Unwanted files will be dumped in the same dir as the wanted ones. However, qbt cannot delete files without forcing a recheck afterwards. Libtorrent doesn't provide a way so I can tell it "hey I deleted piece X so don't consider it downloaded anymore.
What if libtorrent can only verifiy complete blocks? Creating files with unwanted parts might be necessary. Also, what if a block can be seeded only if it's complete? Wouldn't not saving unwanted files a good way to kill a torrent of which anyone doesn't want a file that has part of a piece of a highly requested file? In this case you would download the block you want and never seed it because part of it was immediately discarded.
I would agree with you if the files weren't sparse, but using sparse files is a good solution in my opinion. The fact that sometimes they are not sparse is not a wanted and expected behavior and it never happened to me, but I don't use torrent that much and I use it mostly for single file torrents. I didn't observe the same behavior. Sure more files than those I want are created, but not all of them.
I will see this better when I have time because I could be wrong. I know, I wrote about this in my previous reply. One thing we could do is to delete unwanted files on torrent completion only on user request i. It shouldn't be the default behavior and it shouldn't done before a torrent is completed. A file might be accidentally marked as unwanted while downloading. Could this be this the reason why you had 5GB of unwanted files? The last time I used utorrent, files I didn't want were downloaded.
It was long ago and things might be different now, but I'm quite sure of this. If they can do it and remain efficient, then your arguments about sparse allocation being a good solution or even needed are flawed.
I didn't see any complaints in transmission about this issue, but I see plenty of complaints here for qbt. With Transmission, unwanted files were created as sparse files with. Deselecting an already partially downloaded torrent did not cause the loss of already downloaded data and deselecting an already downloaded file didn't have any effect at all,.
This was not a sparse file. I guess uTorrent doesn't use sparse files because Windows doesn't care if a file is sparse or not, there has to be enough space to store the file as if it wasn't sparse.
I've just tested Transmission v2. Got a torrent with 4 files. Before queueing, I deselected 2 out of 4 -- one very big file, one very small file -- then pressed "Open" to actually queue the torrent for download.
The bastard did the following: allocated space for the big file initially deselected and added. Looking at the properties of the torrent, both the small and big file still appear as deselected I then queued the torrent.
No files were allocated at this stage good. I then opened the torrent properties and selected 5 files from the middle of the list.
None were allocated immediately in the folder good , they only appeared after downloading started with a. This is clearly a bug. AFAIK that file only contains torrent pieces that fall between file boundaries. The libtorrent author has stated in the past that he intends to add this functionality but he didn't give an ETA. Also Windows can have sparse files.
However, unless I am mistaken , its copy function WinAPI is pretty dumb, and if you try to copy a sparse file it doesn't copy the sparseness and it allocates it fully in the new location.
However, unless I am mistaken, its copy function WinAPI is pretty dumb, and if you try to copy a sparse file it doesn't copy the sparseness and it allocates it fully in the new location. I was wrong, once a file is correctly set as sparse, the space is freed again. However I'm not sure you are able to create a sparse file bigger than the available free space.
I think you have to first create the file and then mark it as sparse. This could explain why uTorrent failed when I tried to download a file bigger than the available space, even when it clearly didn't download enough data to fail. I could be totally wrong as I don't know much about this. It isn't "roughly" the same I'm getting the impression here that few if any of you grasp the difference between drive space being 'allocated' and having 'pre-allocation" turned on.
ALL BitTorrent clients request that space be 'allocated' for the payload by the file manager, they HAVE to do this to 'know' where any piece should be placed in the space allocated for those files. Pre-allocate all files tells BitTorrent to create and fully allocate every file you select to download immediately after starting the torrent job.
Note that this option does not have an impact on hard drive fragmentation advantageous or otherwise , as BitTorrent already allocates each file upon writing to disk even without this option. First of all don't assume that all users are dumb. And second of all don't assume that libtorrent doesn't have bugs regarding sparse files and Windows. In corner cases it might not allocate the files as sparse. However it is difficult to reproduce and I don't think the libtorrent author does development on Windows Certainly, but whether there are 'bugs' or not, the difference between 'reserving space' and 'preallocation' remains.
As mentioned some time ago, the new qBt version, 3. It still downloads the unmarked files, but saves them in the current directory.
The normal case is to have this set to 0, so that the storage starts saving data at the start if the file. This is used when mapping "unselected" files into a so-called part file. Does 1. If yes, can you point me to the API that enables this? So we should wait for 1. Is this not the case? EVERY bittorrent client does exactly the same thing, it is called.
Maybe, but storing partially downloaded torrents this way is ridiculous. If you want to keep it, move it to some option and set disabled by default. If people don't want to download some file in torrent, they want to keep space. This is not the behaviour users expect. Nope, the 'file manager' suggests that it has 'a big size' if you look at the "size on disc" in the file properties you WILL find just how 'big' it isn't.
Failing that you may want to read ALL this thread where that is already explained! Tixati does the same thing, the difference there is you can define the folder in the configuration settings where the cross-file pieces are saved. The ONLY exceptions to this are if the drive format does not support sparse files or you have preallocate turned on. Please when are you all going to understand that it is NOT a 'problem'.
The 'problem' is the lack of understanding and the confusion that file managers cause by NOT displaying the actual file size. Tixati STILL creates the same size files when cross file pieces exist and you skip part of the payload, you just don't see them. Do NOT preallocate it doesn't do what you think in any case Use a disc filing system that supports 'sparse' files.
Leave the. Finally: Stop poking about in things you DO NOT need to micromanage and leave it to the client to look after itself, it can do a better job than you can because that is what it is developed to do. I think the best solution will be optional part files support when it is supported by libtorrent. OlegYch that's not exactly true.
Both of those software create a big file called "part file" with all the pieces that are downloaded that don't belong to any file selected for download by the user.
But it's unavoidable by the protocol to download those pieces. You have to download them anyway. To the others: Looking at the BT spec, file allocation sparse or not is not actually enforced. The problem here is that a single BT piece or chunk which can be 1MB in size can contain parts from 2 or more files -- e.
Some of those files may be deselected by the user from download. A BT piece is the smallest unit for download in the BT protocol, one can't download less than a piece, and so the client will get all the file parts inside that piece, regardless which were deslected by the user -- that cannot be changed. Note that the client gets all the file parts inside the BT piece, but does not actually have to also write all file parts to disk.
These are zero length files that the OS reports as having the full size, looking as if they eat space, but they don't -- this is where Chris lights up. While downloading BT pieces, libtorrent fills the corresponding sparse files with whatever file parts are int he piece. The sparse files corresponding to those deselected by the user may remain completely empty zero size , but some of them may have a little data , e.
If the user deselected the 90kB files then they all have zero length on disk, but the OS reports 90kB for each. Personally, I dislike this approach. The client could buffer at least one full BT piece it's max a few MB anyway and discard any file parts belonging to files that were deselected instead of allocating sparse files for all files.
However, this would prevent the client from seeding any file that was overlapping the BT piece in question, since it no longer has the full BT piece Duplicate of Version 4. It uses libtorrent 1. For the moment it's not possible to put that file somewhere else. Skip to content. Star New issue. How to reset Microsoft Edge. Vivaldi 5. Previous Post: « Pale Moon Comments Steven Parker said on November 19, at pm. Martin Brinkmann said on November 19, at pm.
Anon said on April 23, at am. KyuBee said on November 19, at pm. Well, rip magnetdl then. Steven Parker said on November 19, at pm. Paul Us said on November 19, at pm. Anonymous said on November 20, at pm. That is unfortunately only for Windows.
For we mac owners, I am at a loss…. Paul us said on November 20, at pm. Paul us said on November 22, at am. Peter said on November 19, at pm.
John C. Maelish said on November 20, at pm. Dave said on November 22, at pm. Anoir Ben Tanfous said on November 29, at am.
BenG said on December 8, at pm. MrX said on July 16, at pm. CatzDog said on November 9, at am. Kyle said on March 12, at pm. Steve N. Ultima That's great explanation m8!! Data in the cross-file pieces ARE collected, in the partfile. Of course. So if uT dwls padding files, maybe the original uploader has created its torrent from data dwled previously with selective dwling. The rationale behind padding files is that it sorta decouples files and pieces so that there are no longer any cross-file pieces pieces that would otherwise get shared by multiple files get padded until the next file starts on a new piece.
That's why padding files can't be collected into consecutive pieces -- it would completely defeat the purpose.
0コメント