The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. How to download files in torrents sequentially Ask Question. Asked 8 years ago. Active 1 year, 2 months ago. Viewed k times. Improve this question. Sidharth V Sidharth V 1 1 gold badge 2 2 silver badges 6 6 bronze badges. Add a comment.
Active Oldest Votes. You can read about it in this question However, this feature comes with a health warning : Attempts to download the selected torrents in sequential order.
A more detailed explanation of why this feature is bad is available here qBittorrent:. Improve this answer. Starfish 8 8 silver badges 14 14 bronze badges. Rik Rik Curious how this is the accepted answer when it refers to a different question.
OP asked how to download component files in named order, not pieces of the torrent if it can even be imagined as a single blob. Anyway, the first link is defunct, so it doesn't support the answer's assertion any more - another example of why link-only sentiments are bad. I wonder if the other 3 context-free links fare any better. On the forum link is indeed dead but here is another there is multiple times stated that "sequential file downloading" will NOT be implemented in uTorrent.
That alone answered the question and links go dead in time. I added some edits to solutions as to how it could be achieved via a plugin or other program. Please note that I'm talking about "sequential file downloading" as stated in the question.
All the links are about that. I never give link-only answers. The only thing I could have done extra was copy and paste the entire post from that forum but with my additional information in the original answer it was not necessary.
Actually it is supported now, see the answer below this one by Denys Popoff. Scooby Scooby 4 4 silver badges 3 3 bronze badges. Here is a demonstration GIF:. I love more and more tixati — Francesco. Dan D. Go to the "File" tab, then select "prioritize by file order". Also takes longer to have other full seeds out there since the likelyhood of one peer staying to seed after finishing isn't that high a good majority just drop out soon after receiving the whole thing in public trackers , so this is where it harms the swarm.
In an environment where every peer downloads pieces sequentially without exception, the rarest pieces will be at the end of the torrent. In that case, the end of a torrent is at risk of falling out of the network altogether.
But in reality, I see a self-correcting situation. While downloading a file, I noticed on my graphic indicator that my download was "end heavy". The further a piece was from the beginning of the file, the more likely I was to have received it. In a mixed environment of sequential downloaders SDs and non-sequential downloaders NSDs , wouldn't the activity of the SDs cause the NSDs to preferentially trade end pieces, thus balancing piece availability on the network?
I am presuming that the NSDs prefer to download rarest pieces first, and that they know what pieces are rare by polling the swarm or asking the tracker, as the case may be.
Sequential downloading is preferred by users who want to preview the files to decide whether they want to finish downloading them. If a sequential option is built into a Bittorrent client, it may be wise to design it so that the client alternates between requesting sequential pieces and rare pieces.
It could boost piece availability and give "file insurance" to the individual user against losing the ability to download rare pieces toward the end. In a mixed torrent swarm environment, the odds of other peers having the piece they demand is pretty low Even having bt. Also, if there's multiple sequential downloaders, any 2 will never download from each other at the same time because at least one of the 2 will always want pieces the other doesn't have.
This causes BitTorrent's tit-for-tat logic to fail miserably! The damage that sequential downloading causes is very similar to having LOTS of hit-and-run downloaders. They leave the moment it finishes downloading. This is probably the leading cause of torrent death. The last pieces that they receive may be least likely to get uploaded by them before they leave. Do you think that sequential downloading by other peers is the reason why my download was extremely "end heavy", or do you think it is a coincidence?
The last dead torrent in which I participated seemed to be "dead all over", not dead at the end. But I don't have much experience with Bittorrent to know how torrents usually die. The "bt. There is usually no motive to prioritize the end pieces, and the option implies sequential downloading on both ends. It seems better to mix sequential downloading the beginning with preferentially requesting rare pieces. A download that's lacking the last few sequential pieces has quite likely been the victim of sequential downloading.
I've seen numerous torrents with BitComet clients that had strong availability of all end-of-file pieces for every large file in the torrent. I'm still not sure that sequential downloading kills torrents. But disappearance of seeds certainly does. I recognize the problem of stratification, which is an inability of peers to trade. Stratification is a condition like this:. Peer A has some fraction of the torrent, and has all of the pieces available on the network at the moment.
Peer B has some fraction of A's pieces, and nothing more. Peer C has some fraction of B's pieces, and nothing more. Peer D has some fraction of C's pieces, and nothing more. Every peer has a different amount of the torrent, and none of the peers are capable of swapping pieces. Stratification would eventually happen in an environment where there is no seed, and every peer insists on getting pieces quickly in exchange for its bandwidth.
If the torrent had sequential downloaders, the lower strata would tend only to have the beginning of the file. The higher strata would tend to be missing only the end of the file. If you see a stratified dead torrent with evidence of sequential downloading, it is easy to blame sequential downloading for the death of the torrent. But the torrent actually died from stratification. If the torrent does not have sequential downloaders, stratification can still happen.
The only difference is that the downloaded pieces will look more scattered on each peer's map of the file. If a seed returns to the network, all of the stratified peers will be newly motivated to send pieces downstream because seeds reward peers for providing bandwidth.
A torrent should not become stratified as long as seeds are uploading. It seems as if torrents need seeds, period. Peers that share while downloading will reduce the bandwidth burden on the seeds. But the torrent concept does not work unless seeds remain available. Well-designed seeds will distribute pieces to peers that are good at sharing. They will preferentially distribute rare pieces on the network. They will try to send the pieces to low strata, because this increases the number of times that the pieces will be copied as they "bubble up" to the higher strata through swapping.
That devolves into ALL peers having the same pieces as A all stuck on the same percent complete. Seen it, been there, done that. Except for very huge torrents, this often happens within hours of the last seed leaving. They aren't playing fair. Sequential downloaders would quickly KILL such a torrent with no seeders! Availability is exactly 0. That peer probably uploaded far out of proportion to how much it got from other peers and the seed by that point.
Availability is still VERY likely to be greater than 1. I'd put a high probability that the remaining 9 peers can still complete the torrent given enough sharing between them. This means the lone seed had to upload more and for longer The only choices a seed has is to NOT upload to peers This is automatically done, with the user not getting a choice in the matter.
Torrents need availabilities above 1. Seeds are not absolutely necessary beyond the initial seeding, provided the availability remains at or above 1. That is correct, technically. But I expect that a torrent availability above 1.
Given the giant number of pieces in some files, it is improbable that every piece would be available. It is a product of very, very many numbers between 0 and 1 which becomes smaller as the number of pieces increases. Of course, a person can use three ip addresses, hosting a different third of the torrent with each address. Then the torrent can have zero seeds, and a forced availability of 1. But for this discussion, I consider that example to be a method of seeding by using a workaround.
Torrent client with continuous file download Ask Question. Asked 7 years, 3 months ago. Active 6 years, 6 months ago. Viewed 1k times. Improve this question. Smit Johnth. Smit Johnth Smit Johnth 1 1 gold badge 3 3 silver badges 13 13 bronze badges. NicolasRaoul it's gui suxx, it's too simple and doesn't look good. See qBittorrent. Continuous is a bit confusing. I guess that could be useful for watching a video before it completes, like streaming.
Maybe that's the only use for it? Show 3 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. I already mentioned qBittorrent in my answer, but continious download haven't worked always.
Imagine I invited a friend to watch a movie, but instead of watching it we have to wait until it fully downloads because qbt fails again. Link you gave is crap a I don't understand quite how the authors come to this conclusion; b on trackers I use most peers after initial seeding are seeds so it doesn't matter in which order to download. Add a comment.
0コメント