Dan Pritts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It's usually the same who have difficulties understanding that greed >> is advantageous only up to a point, at which it tends to turn back on >> the greedy. Or, if you will, difficulties recognizing that point. > > Perhaps you are having difficulty recognizing that i'm not suggesting > greed. > > I just want whole files, when practical. i'd be happy to have *any* > random one of the thousand files in a given torrent. a whole file is > much more potentially useful than a file with chunks missing. > > again, when it's a half dozen files it probably breaks down. but > when it's a large number i don't believe it does.
Sorry for any offense you might have read out of my post, it just was a general remark not specifically targeted at you. Maybe there's a misunderstanding, anyway. The point I've been asking about was chunk level algorithm tweaks, as mentioned in the comments of ticket #94, since they are generally considered highly objectionable. It has to be said though, while clients do support file picking these days, I'm not quite sure if trackers would take it kindly if a client supported fully automated sequential downloads even only on file level. It would, after all, hurt the swarm's performance and be a first step towards breaking one of the core bt algorithms. There would theoretically be a last line of defense though by seeders uploading only single file torrents. While there is none in case of chunk level tweaks. Still, if I came back to be a regular rtorrent user, I would sure prefer if these issues were handled with prudence and such features best be implemented in concert with what other major clients do. Especially since clients usually get much more easily banned than unbanned. I do understand your concern. But as said, if you encounter bad torrents that often, some people I know would generally advise to either get onto a better tracker/community or to consider whether bt is for you after all. There are still plenty of other file sharing platforms out there which may better suit your requirements. This is not what I'm saying right now, but it's what I hear being said often enough in this kind of bend or break discussions. Speaking for myself, while bt unfortunately is not RFC'd, I still do prefer a conservative approach on these issues. Regards, R. _______________________________________________ Libtorrent-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rakshasa.no/mailman/listinfo/libtorrent-devel
