[quote="Switeck"]
What's being asked for here is pretty much streaming audio/video files from torrents.
Streaming can be done with "simple" sequential downloading, so long as the 1st and last pieces of the file are big enough to get the critical parts.
It'll work great on most private trackers because they typically have 20+ really fast seeds per every new peer that comes along.
It'll probably work ok on public torrents with lots of seeds and very few peers.
But streaming will fail without warning on many public torrents, even ones that have more seeds than peers...especially if the streamer is firewalled.
A streaming video has to sustain a download speed consistently higher than the playback speed. (barring a large starting buffer and/or lots of pauses)
If it fails to do that, you'll eventually catch up to a piece you haven't downloaded yet even if you have a lot of pieces after the missing one.
Depending on the playback method, a missing piece could result in either a blank screen for a few seconds/minutes (if the file was intially filled with 0's), a portion of another video file previously stored in the same spot (which can be confusing or embarrassing), lots of garbage on the screen, a player crash, or file system/OS crash. Worst-case I can think of (but not likely) -- important accessing files get corrupted during a file system/OS crash...rendering the computer incapable of rebooting until the OS is reinstalled.
Your example:
"1080p video torrent (5gb)"
...Probably needs ~20 mbit/sec upload speed from other seeds/peers to the streamer or you risk failures.
That's a lot more than a single ADSL 2+ or average cable connection has!
Even when a torrent swarm provides that, a streamer has to upload that torrent at least as fast or seed for hours/days after finishing to balance out.
Without safeguards which I've tried to explain in previous posts, people attempting to stream less-busy public torrents will often have silly, spectacular, and ugly failures.
[/quote]
Haven't gotten one to fail me yet from public ones, so still why is this an issue?
Like I still don't get it, wouldn't you still be able to disable it? so whats really the issue you are trying to make here?
"Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
-
Switeck
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
Because where there ARE problems, it will be bad for everyone on the torrent swarm.
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
Last edited by Switeck on Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
dragons4life
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="Switeck"]
Because where there ARE problems, it will be bad for everyone on the torrent swarm.
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
[/quote]
I still don't see the problem, and I still feel like you are just making it up.
oh well, whatever.
Because where there ARE problems, it will be bad for everyone on the torrent swarm.
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
[/quote]
I still don't see the problem, and I still feel like you are just making it up.
oh well, whatever.
-
KitKat
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="Switeck"]
[quote="KitKat"]If you're downloading a video and know its duration (whcih you'll know after metadata or just from general information/educated speculation about it..)[/quote]Human readable vs machine readable. qBT has to gather that metadata from somewhere, even if the user already knows the answer.
[/quote]
Im aware, this is why we want 1% from the back and front to guarantee we get the machine readable metadata...
Im talking about single file torrents, a series of files would obviously be more complicated due to shared pieces.
Im not silly :C
[quote="dragons4life"]
[quote="Switeck"]
Because where there ARE problems, it will be bad for everyone on the torrent swarm.
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
[/quote]
I still don't see the problem, and I still feel like you are just making it up.
oh well, whatever.
[/quote]
I'll attempt to simplify via example for you.
Everyone in the world uses sequential downloading for torrents all of a sudden, a new movie comes out and 1000 people (all with sequential downloading enabled) want to download it.
The initial seeder will be handing out duplicate pieces for a very very long time because not everyone will also be seeding what they download (5kbs upload rate limit anyone..!?)
Because the initial seeder is handing out duplicate pieces when he sees his ratio at 1000% its possible in this scenario for there to only be 20% or less of the full torrent available.
If he then goes "1000% yup im done, time to seed the next one" and stops seeding the torrent he just made is dead.
In a case where there are 500+ seeders then sequential downloading argueable is a small drop in the ocean as there are 500 different sources, the question is how many sources is considered "enough redundancy" to risk everyone sequential downloading 100 seeders? 50 seeders? 10?
What the non-inclusion (by default) of this feature hopes to prevent is that scenario that heavily stresses the initial seeders connection, the goal is to have every piece available from multiple sources as fast as possible so there is no single point of failure, a tonne of people requesting the exact same pieces (sequential downloading etc) hinders that process significantly.
[quote="KitKat"]If you're downloading a video and know its duration (whcih you'll know after metadata or just from general information/educated speculation about it..)[/quote]Human readable vs machine readable. qBT has to gather that metadata from somewhere, even if the user already knows the answer.
[/quote]
Im aware, this is why we want 1% from the back and front to guarantee we get the machine readable metadata...
Im talking about single file torrents, a series of files would obviously be more complicated due to shared pieces.
Im not silly :C
[quote="dragons4life"]
[quote="Switeck"]
Because where there ARE problems, it will be bad for everyone on the torrent swarm.
Even a RARE failure can be 1 failure too much, especially if it happens to you.
You don't have problems on busy public torrents on your internet connection...which I'm guessing isn't bog-standard ADSL 2+ with ~10-15 mbit/sec down and ~0.7-1 mbit/sec up.
But you may not be able to upload as fast as you need to solo-stream a 1080p (5GB) torrent to someone else either!
[/quote]
I still don't see the problem, and I still feel like you are just making it up.
oh well, whatever.
[/quote]
I'll attempt to simplify via example for you.
Everyone in the world uses sequential downloading for torrents all of a sudden, a new movie comes out and 1000 people (all with sequential downloading enabled) want to download it.
The initial seeder will be handing out duplicate pieces for a very very long time because not everyone will also be seeding what they download (5kbs upload rate limit anyone..!?)
Because the initial seeder is handing out duplicate pieces when he sees his ratio at 1000% its possible in this scenario for there to only be 20% or less of the full torrent available.
If he then goes "1000% yup im done, time to seed the next one" and stops seeding the torrent he just made is dead.
In a case where there are 500+ seeders then sequential downloading argueable is a small drop in the ocean as there are 500 different sources, the question is how many sources is considered "enough redundancy" to risk everyone sequential downloading 100 seeders? 50 seeders? 10?
What the non-inclusion (by default) of this feature hopes to prevent is that scenario that heavily stresses the initial seeders connection, the goal is to have every piece available from multiple sources as fast as possible so there is no single point of failure, a tonne of people requesting the exact same pieces (sequential downloading etc) hinders that process significantly.
Last edited by KitKat on Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Switeck
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="KitKat"]In a case where there are 500+ seeders then sequential downloading argueable is a small drop in the ocean as there are 500 different sources, the question is how many sources is considered "enough redundancy" to risk everyone sequential downloading 100 seeders? 50 seeders? 10?[/quote]The value of seeds varies immensely. Private tracker seeds are one thing, especially if they have strict ratio rules. But the value of seeds on a public torrent can be really low. They could be firewalled, on throttling ISPs, using junk settings, running multiple other torrents, sharing the internet connection with others, etc.
Even default settings for qBitTorrent can make things worse instead of better.
Some speed+quality testing of seeds/peers while first getting some rare pieces might help, but then you're not doing sequential downloading...yet.
Even default settings for qBitTorrent can make things worse instead of better.
Some speed+quality testing of seeds/peers while first getting some rare pieces might help, but then you're not doing sequential downloading...yet.
-
KitKat
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
In my example speed is less important, im using the word sequential instead of streamed.
I mean hypothetically everyone downloads via p2p exactly as they would via http, A-Z front to back, in that example propagation/piece diversity is the main issue, not the fact that some seeds are cunts/or have bad upload speeds which devalues their worth.
In my example all seeds are equal, we dont care how fast it gets done, we care that it can actually get done (isnt dead/entire file remains available).
Downloading when done with dynamic sources (no-one seeds forever, peers leave the swarm all the time, its non-permanant/not static) runs a risk that the file may be "dead" or uncompleteable one day, if everyone sequential downloads and has the same pieces (but with a greatly increased bandwidth on the sources) that risk of it just "dying" prematurely is greatly increased.
Been able to actually stream the content comes after that and adds its own set of problems.
The issue is sequential downloading causes a failure to propagate rare/unique pieces, not that its too slow to stream, at least in my humble opinion ;p
I mean hypothetically everyone downloads via p2p exactly as they would via http, A-Z front to back, in that example propagation/piece diversity is the main issue, not the fact that some seeds are cunts/or have bad upload speeds which devalues their worth.
In my example all seeds are equal, we dont care how fast it gets done, we care that it can actually get done (isnt dead/entire file remains available).
Downloading when done with dynamic sources (no-one seeds forever, peers leave the swarm all the time, its non-permanant/not static) runs a risk that the file may be "dead" or uncompleteable one day, if everyone sequential downloads and has the same pieces (but with a greatly increased bandwidth on the sources) that risk of it just "dying" prematurely is greatly increased.
Been able to actually stream the content comes after that and adds its own set of problems.
The issue is sequential downloading causes a failure to propagate rare/unique pieces, not that its too slow to stream, at least in my humble opinion ;p
Last edited by KitKat on Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Crobot
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
I would also like to see the option to set sequential dloads and 1st and last piece first. I can see why this would be a problem killing a torrent if EVERYONE did it but they wont. Its a just a few people like the feature and dont want to keep right clicking on every torrent they add to enable the feaure.
-
KitKat
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="Crobot"]
I can see why this would be a problem killing a torrent if EVERYONE did it but they wont.
[/quote]
They really would..
Honestly they really would, especially if it was a default-able option.
You'd start getting "tutorials" for downloading movies that would include setting this feature to default so you can "enjoy this cool feature" at which point a majority would have it enabled and R.I.P torrents.
Next you'll be asking for inbuilt features to "automatically remove torrents when they hit 100%"
Not everyone would use it, its just for me, seriously i promise...
Yeah no, the majority would use it..
Combine these 2 hypothetical features and you've now got serious piece availability problems.
I can see why this would be a problem killing a torrent if EVERYONE did it but they wont.
[/quote]
They really would..
Honestly they really would, especially if it was a default-able option.
You'd start getting "tutorials" for downloading movies that would include setting this feature to default so you can "enjoy this cool feature" at which point a majority would have it enabled and R.I.P torrents.
Next you'll be asking for inbuilt features to "automatically remove torrents when they hit 100%"
Not everyone would use it, its just for me, seriously i promise...
Yeah no, the majority would use it..
Combine these 2 hypothetical features and you've now got serious piece availability problems.
Last edited by KitKat on Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
dragons4life
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="KitKat"]
[quote="Crobot"]
I can see why this would be a problem killing a torrent if EVERYONE did it but they wont.
[/quote]
They really would..
Honestly they really would, especially if it was a default-able option.
You'd start getting "tutorials" for downloading movies that would include setting this feature to default so you can "enjoy this cool feature" at which point a majority would have it enabled and R.I.P torrents.
Next you'll be asking for inbuilt features to "automatically remove torrents when they hit 100%"
Not everyone would use it, its just for me, seriously i promise...
Yeah no, the majority would use it..
Combine these 2 hypothetical features and you've now got serious piece availability problems.
[/quote]
Can't they already do that with a script on qbit?
[quote="Crobot"]
I can see why this would be a problem killing a torrent if EVERYONE did it but they wont.
[/quote]
They really would..
Honestly they really would, especially if it was a default-able option.
You'd start getting "tutorials" for downloading movies that would include setting this feature to default so you can "enjoy this cool feature" at which point a majority would have it enabled and R.I.P torrents.
Next you'll be asking for inbuilt features to "automatically remove torrents when they hit 100%"
Not everyone would use it, its just for me, seriously i promise...
Yeah no, the majority would use it..
Combine these 2 hypothetical features and you've now got serious piece availability problems.
[/quote]
Can't they already do that with a script on qbit?
-
KitKat
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
They can, but it still involves a script.
Its not a checkbox they tick. Its something that requires effort.
Most people wont put the (minimal) effort in to find/make a script and configure it to work.
However if it was just a checkbox well...
Same sort of argument for sequential downloading, its possible, but its involves some "effort" to setup as opposed to set and forget.
Its not a checkbox they tick. Its something that requires effort.
Most people wont put the (minimal) effort in to find/make a script and configure it to work.
However if it was just a checkbox well...
Same sort of argument for sequential downloading, its possible, but its involves some "effort" to setup as opposed to set and forget.
-
Switeck
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
Yes, qBitTorrent can destroy itself easily. Look at what uTorrent has done with its ads and bugs...
-
jedi21
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
[quote="Switeck"]
Yes, qBitTorrent can destroy itself easily. Look at what uTorrent has done with its ads and bugs...
[/quote]
If you do not need it, it doesnt mean that nobody needs.
I'm telling about "by default as an option"
Yes, qBitTorrent can destroy itself easily. Look at what uTorrent has done with its ads and bugs...
[/quote]
If you do not need it, it doesnt mean that nobody needs.
I'm telling about "by default as an option"
-
Switeck
Re: "Download in sequential order" by default as an option?
As I have previously explained, Seq. DLing can cause problems for the user and problems for torrent swarms.
It should be used only on torrents with lots of fast seeds NOT enabled by default to affect every torrent ever run.
It should be used only on torrents with lots of fast seeds NOT enabled by default to affect every torrent ever run.