I downloaded a 10GB file, it reached 100%, but when I close qBittorrent, it rechecked it and found that it has reached only 75% and continued downloading. I deleted it, downloaded it again from 0% but the same happened. Any idea why?
Thank you!
File reached 100%, after I closed qBittorrent it rechecked and found it 75%
Re: File reached 100%, after I closed qBittorrent it rechecked and found it 75%
hello!
glad you posted about this...as no one seems to care about this BIG PROBLEM !!
In my case qbt 2.9.7 on Windows 7 x86 Sp1 i have had this MANY times (big files or small ones....) my torrent finishes and stars seeding...but if i close the client...BOUM, i have to redownload again (from 50% or 70% it's random...)
It is a major Annoyance and i really hope that this WILL be fixed....maybe the problem is specific to the windows build
???????????
glad you posted about this...as no one seems to care about this BIG PROBLEM !!
In my case qbt 2.9.7 on Windows 7 x86 Sp1 i have had this MANY times (big files or small ones....) my torrent finishes and stars seeding...but if i close the client...BOUM, i have to redownload again (from 50% or 70% it's random...)
It is a major Annoyance and i really hope that this WILL be fixed....maybe the problem is specific to the windows build

Re: File reached 100%, after I closed qBittorrent it rechecked and found it 75%
[quote="newborn"]
maybe the problem is specific to the windows build
???????????
[/quote]
No. I use Win 7 Pro SP1 32-bit + qB 2.9.7 (M. Dib's build: http://qbforums.shiki.hu/index.php?topic=725.0) and i never had such problem.
maybe the problem is specific to the windows build

[/quote]
No. I use Win 7 Pro SP1 32-bit + qB 2.9.7 (M. Dib's build: http://qbforums.shiki.hu/index.php?topic=725.0) and i never had such problem.
Re: File reached 100%, after I closed qBittorrent it rechecked and found it 75%
Same problem for me. However i don't need to redownload anything, if i force recheck - it actually finds all 100% of the torrent. I'm using win7 sp1 x64. This issue probably x64-specific cause it never happened on x86 so far.