Download in sequential order for new torrents by default option

[defHLT]

It would be fantastic if bittorent had 'Download in sequential order' checkbox in Adding Torrent dialog and so we could turn this checkbox on by default in Options.

Thank you

[NicolasWebDev]

I greatly support this, and furthermore it is quite a pain right now to set this option on multiple files at the same time, so doing it by default would be really great indeed !

[nivensd]

You realize that trying to download in sequencial order can actually hurt/slow the entire "cloud", right? Especially when the seeder:leecher ratio is bad.

[NicolasWebDev]

That's a good point, but I think it may be useful to ease the process for users that really want to download in sequential order. Moreover I prefer downloading/seeding files that I really need, and that I can check earlier with the preview.

Making it default at install wouldn't be a good idea though.

[slacka]

I do not think this should be a feature that users can set to be always on. Sequential downloads are unsocial and bad for the health of the torrent.

Even uTorrent forces users to click manually select the torrent and then click "stream" 2 times ( 1 to buffer, 2nd to start). Qbitorrent only requires 1 steps, which is good enough.

[sledgehammer999]

Copy pasting from #1404:

After reading the link alderz linked to, and giving it some thought I am of the belief that this shouldn't be automated. However a new option in the "add new torrent" dialog that will control this is 'ok' I think. Of course, this option will be always disabled for each torrent and the user will have to enable it per torrent again and again.

[slacka]

I do not think it should be made any easier without addressing issue #182 first.

[sledgehammer999]

@slacka I'll keep it in mind.

[defHLT]

I don't see how sequential download does hurt. What really hurts - upload speed & share ratio limits - yet you can set them freely in settings and ignore everyone. No such luck for users who simply want to stream their download and share their upload traffic at the maximum rate.

[ifmihai]

I would surely love automatic sequential order downloading for video files. Most often than not, I preview video files to see the quality or maybe content, while torrent is downloading.

Another idea would be to have the possibility to choose labels for which sequential order is default.

But, a checkbox with sequential order, automatically checked for video files, would be the simplest method as I see it

[publicspace]

Great, some people are actually here supporting the idea of less usuaibility to uphold some ideals. Just great. Why not focus on providing the best software possible for your users instead, instead of considering other issues such as "cloud" speed? There are competitiors out there, and they might soon offer a feature like this if you don't. Plus, the whole idea of this feature is to be able to instantly start watching a video, which is not a bad thing at all. But right now, I have to right click twice and uncheck two options, every time. I have RSI and I don't want to deal with stuff like this at all.

[NicolasWebDev]

Even though I think it is better to have sequential download for previewing, thus actually alleviating the cloud if it is not what you wanted, I am not sure ranting like that on open-source software will really help.

I do prefer something open-source, even though it may have less features.

[defHLT]

Once again, the nature of bittorent is such that downloading sequentially while sharing upload bandwidth is likely to be beneficial to peers. While downloading and any order and not sharing is harmful. Yet you can disable uploading in settings. Yet you can't enable sequential order by default.

[ngosang]

We can add this feature in advanced options. By default can be disabled but advanced users can use that feature and stop complaining...

[Chocobo1]

@ngosang , I am inclined to this way: https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/164#issuecomment-35165918

[ngosang]

I am inclined to this way: #164 (comment)

this option will be always disabled for each torrent and the user will have to enable it per torrent again and again.

Not opposed, but we will have a lot of people asking why this option is not saved for the following torrents.

I don't use download in sequential order because I have a high download speed but I understand people. In uTorrent there is a feature called Stream much better than ours Preview. When you click Stream, download in sequential order starts and you can see a countdown in the button with the remaining seconds to play. When countdown is 0 the media player is launched. In this way you can stream one movie/tv show with one click. If you want to do this in qBittorrent you have to check download in sequential order and wait until you see the first blocks completed in the General tab, then you open container folder and go to the file and open it with the media player (if you are not using !.qB extension). There are a lot of steps and it's hard to learn for normal user.

In addition, in uTorrent if you click Stream in a torrent with multiple video files you will see a dialog (we have something like that): but instead of download in sequential order the whole torrent this feature downloads in sequential order the file and start playing when you have first and last pieces of that file.

I think that implementing Preview/Stream in a properly way will be more interesting/useful that download in sequential order (for me that feature is OK as it's now). As download in sequential order only makes sense for video files I think users won't request this feature anymore because it is more comfortable pressing a button instead of doing all the steps that I mentioned earlier.

[ifmihai]

the stream idea, nice! didn't know about utorrent doing such a nice thing i will install it right away, although i would prefer to stick to qbittorrent, I felt it more reliable.

Anyway, the stream idea is way better than this feature request, in this thread

update. BAHHH! I've installed it for nothing. you have to buy pro version to have stream feature. utorrent => uninstall

[NicolasWebDev]

I really love the stream idea as well.

But wouldn't it be complicated to implement?

Seemed to me that every format needs a different percentage of downloaded file to be previewed, some need to be entirely downloaded. Seemed to me it depended also on the video player, because some handle errors well, others don't.

But if it is doable it would really be a killer feature few competitors provide (unless paying in the case of utorrent).

[jackpot08]

YES! please add this feature to "Download in sequential order". and it would be nice to uncheck "download first and last piece first" so to force it to download completely in order by default.

[jackpot08]

Would the stream idea work to chromecast?

[slacka]

Please don't post more "me too" posts. It just adds noise to the thread. We know the feature is in demand, the problem is technical, see: http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Sequential_downloading_is_bad

issue #182 would address these concerns by allowing downloading in a much healthier manner than sequential currently does.

[publicspace]

Seriously, slacka. That argument is dead. There are competitors out there, such as Popcorn times that offer this as their only feature, and it's going very well for them. They even have a built in player.

Now imagine, if qbittorent were to offer this, including listing files inside torrents, then you can pick your episode and just click watch.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:05 AM, slacka notifications@github.com wrote:

Please don't post more "me too" posts. It just adds noise to the thread. We know the feature is in demand, the problem is technical, see: http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Sequential_downloading_is_bad

issue #182 https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/182 would address these concerns by allowing downloading in a much healthier manner than sequential currently does.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/164#issuecomment-129286006 .

[defHLT]

@slacka What is worse sequential downloading or disabling upload traffic or not participating at all?

Answer: (worst) > not participating > disabling upload traffic > sequential downloading > normal downloading (best)

[sledgehammer999]

I am all for making simpler for users to enable sequential download. I just don't want it to be a persistent option. As for streaming there is something in libtorrent already and there is some discussion on it at #182. First I was unsure on how it would work for multifile torrents but seeing the utorrent way explained by @ngosang it seems "easy".

Btw, to all those saying that competing clients do this or that. Guess what? We aren't being paid and we're open source. That means that WE DON'T COMPETE with anyone. We go our own pace. PS: If anyone offered to pay for this trivial code addtition I am sure any of the currently active devs (myself) included could come up with a patch enabling persistence of this option in a matter of minutes. The issue is that it will never be accepted in the official codebase.

[ngosang]

@sledgehammer999 if you want to implement the Stream feature I can do the maths to estimate the minimum buffer size, estimated time to start playing, deadline times...

[yefraim]

I have a small naive suggestion, I'm really not into developing and/or torrents, but maybe there's a balanced approach to consider. Maybe the algorithm of the "Sequential" mode should be mixed and balanced. There would be a smart, experience-based number which represents the "rare availability".

Any pieces below this availability rate would be downloaded first, and any above would be downloaded in a sequential order. That way you make sure all interests are taken care of.

[sledgehammer999]

if you want to implement the Stream feature I can do the maths to estimate the minimum buffer size, estimated time to start playing, deadline times...

Great. But I don't know when I'll start implementing. (If anyone else wants to start first, go ahead. Just a leave message here so no duplicate work is done).

[publicspace]

Have you guys heard of popcorntime.io ? the reason of their extreme success is that they bundled the player and allowed for sequential downloading. You have the search, no allow for download and play immediately, or at least provide us with sequential downloading!

It's terrible when people with ideals come in and try to change the world by preventing others of a good feature, just because they have certain philosophy in life.

Believe it or not, qbittorrent is not what is keeping torrents alive, and it shouldn't try so hard in giving back, instead if it should focus on being the best player out there.

We are all downloading stuff illegally, so can we stop with the nice guy attitude?

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, sledgehammer999 notifications@github.com wrote:

if you want to implement the Stream feature I can do the maths to estimate the minimum buffer size, estimated time to start playing, deadline times...

Great. But I don't know when I'll start implementing. (If anyone else wants to start first, go ahead. Just a leave message here so no duplicate work is done).

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/164#issuecomment-137036753 .

[chrishirst]

We are all downloading stuff illegally, so can we stop with the nice guy attitude?

Not every body is, including myself, and "popcorn.io" seem to have more lawsuits against them than "piratebay" do. I cannot speak for any of the developers but I do think that NOT having 'streaming capabilities' and avoiding the possible legal consequences is a better option for all concerned.

or at least provide us with sequential downloading!

qbittorrent already does. Also, ... If "popcorn.io" already does exactly what you require, ... Why not just use that

[ngosang]

to have a streaming feature is legal and useful, to earn money distributing pirated content is illegal. other torrent clients as uTorrent have this feature and don't have legal issues.

[anontahoe]

publicspace looks like a shill but i have no idea what his agenda is, his posts make no sense at all.

[philipzae]

I enable this feature through the context menu after i start a new torrent so that i can watch the torrent while it is downloading, so having the option to set it in the add torrent dialog would be helpful, even if the checkbox is not persistent, as i dont need it on all the time, as it would be useless for software, books, etc.

[sheeit]

Sequential download is bad.

[NicolasWebDev]

@sheeit , well, it is bad indeed, but with moderation I think it is a must-have. Actually the debate on this topic begun on message number 3.

If I am downloading a 15GB movie in 3D, I don't really want to let it finish to check it is not pr0n...

[slacka]

@Sathors You're adding nothing to this discussion but noise. Everyone agrees that it's a useful option. This is not the issue. The issue is that if everyone defaulted to sequential download, it would be extremely harmful to the health of the swarms. To avoid this problem we need a smart algorithm with a sequential buffer similar to what uTorrent uses. See issue #182 for details.

[Innomen]

I just adore all the people who are otherwise totally against DRM, unironically arguing in favor of what amounts to just that to preserve the "health of swarms."

I want whatever settings I want however I want them. If this harms things then that's the protocol's problem and should be adjusted there, not by hamstringing clients and users.

Why even support an open source client if you're gonna behave like a wannabe closed source authoritarian?

/smh

This "for your own good" crap is microsoft/apple grade garbage.

[thalieht]

I just adore all the people who are otherwise totally against DRM, unironically arguing in favor of what amounts to just that to preserve the "health of swarms."

If DRM is to protect the collective from people like you then DRM for life!

If an option to enable it by default were to be introduced would you remember, or even care, to turn it off on torrents that you don't need to use it? Yea even if you were, you would be the exception.

The devs already said they're open to patches to make this option more accessible on a per torrent basis.

This "for your own good" crap is microsoft/apple grade garbage.

How is that "for your own good"? It's clearly to protect the collective FROM people like you!

[Innomen]

Thank you for 100% proving my point.

You did not refute my core assertion in any way, let alone a substantive one. Again, I ask in light of your position: Why even support an open source client if you're gonna behave like a wannabe closed source authoritarian?

[slacka]

As it stands now, the current implementation harms the health of the swarm. See issue #182. If that issue is resolved, this feature would not longer be considered harmful and could be enabled by default.

[coreinsane]

It would be really good to have an option to start torrents sequentially, especially in qbittorrent nox. Because for example I have a pi set up for torrenting at home, with samba server, and I could start the movie I am downloading, as soon as adding it to the pi from my notebook.

[superbonaci]

You just add the torrent, right click and select sequential order, not a big problem.

[Innomen]

If it's not a big problem then there's no reason to not fix it. If the function is harmful remove it entirely, if it isn't, then make it a toggle. This half measure is just stupid.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 7:40 AM superbonaci notifications@github.com wrote:

You just add the torrent, right click and select sequential order, not a big problem.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issues/164#issuecomment-338474383, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIMtLEN8g10-YUykHUfhVKbCUwH8Jthks5suze5gaJpZM4AND6f .

[cliffordcooley]

This is precisely why I came here today. I didn't know if I would find it already requested. It is getting old having to set each file to "download in sequential order" when they start. To be honest I would love if I had the option available to me, without having to wait for the torrent to start downloading.

[cliffordcooley]

I can see asking for help on this topic, is a waste of time. I probably won't find a software I like as well as qBittorrent, but I now have a need in looking elsewhere. It has been 12 days since I commented last. There has not been any comments since. And I could tell by the comments before mine that my comment would go nowhere. I'm leaving now and forgetting I came here. I'm going to try and forget qBittorent exist as well.

[Innomen]

Could someone just fork it? Seems like it would be a small change, though I don't know how to begin doing it.

[YodaEmbedding]

Couldn't there be a compromise: semi-sequential downloading.

Download sequentially at a rate sufficient to stream (>= the file bitrate) but let the rest of the pieces be downloaded in the optimal order for the swarm.

[Innomen]

Edit: I completely love this idea of semi-sequential downloading.

[cliffordcooley]

As a follow up on my previous comment, qBittorrent has made changes to how downloads are handled. I'm having to manually set the download method much less frequently. I'm satisfied with the efforts they made since my last visit. Now I can turn off notifications for this topic, meant to do that last time I was here.

[rhazor]

That's great that devs are aware of duplicate requests spam to make sequential order as default, but they should also be aware it's also spam to keep repeating saying 'it's bad for the health of the torrent!'. We get it.

So there's my compromise.

Just make it as an option under Advanced tab with warning that this setting is for advanced users only and that they understand what they are doing. It's not for the dev to decide what torrent I'm downloading with what seed:leech ratio, is it bad or good. E.g. all torrents I download are 100% always good and for the past year I've been toggling sequential order for each and every torrent and they always worked fine and I never had problem.

E.g. in uTorrent 2.2.1 you can set boolean variables for bt.sequential_download and bt.sequential_files. And 2.2.1 is like 8 years old! And nobody is complaining. Just put that setting somewhere deep in the bottom.

[FranciscoPombal]

@rhazor qBittorrent uses libtorrent as backend; libtorrent already optimizes for this case: if the torrent is healthy enough, and the user is downloading fast enough, libtorrent will download pieces sequentially in order to optimize disk writes (@arvidn please correct me if I am wrong on this one).

Thus, if the torrent is not already downloading sequentially, you are most likely harming the swarm by forcing that. It is not up to you to decide.

Come to think of it, the option for downloading in sequential order is suboptimal when compared to a possible "stream/per-file stream" option mentioned above. However, until we have such a "streaming" option, enabling the automation of sequential downloading would be pretty bad for the health of the swarms.

@glassez All of these issues that ask for automated sequential downloaded (there are other duplicates around) should probably be closed. In my opinion, the focus should be on the implementation of a "streaming" feature. Until then, the manual way of setting the sequential download should remain as is.

[Innomen]

I'll say it again, IF this behavior is "bad" then that is a problem with the PROTOCOL. Not clients. And certainly not end users of the clients.

Fulfilling user wishes IS THE ENTIRE POINT of software. (Why do I have to explain that?)

The client is supposed to be whatever users want it to be, limited only to whatever is permitted by the laws of nature. Period.

Semi off topic cultural rant:

Free as in speech means no one telling you what to say.

I can't believe I have to even tangentially explain that in an OSS community. Especially on a thread relating to a torrent client, whose very foundation protocol others claim is bad for the health of society.

The very existence of torrents is a rebuke to the very kind of control FranciscoPombal and others are promulgating.

I'm already using an AHK macro to automate the setting so I don't care either way. (Available on request.)

I almost thought the people hating controlling tech guy was a cliche from bad fiction. If not, then I am glad they are tragedy of the commons coding themselves out of relevance at the speed of greed.

Apparently it's gonna take a fork for this app to ever stop reflecting that ideology. I know this won't happen but someone should post the exact code that needs to be changed that annihilates this purpose built annoyance.

The whole reason this client got popular was because it's an escape from the arrogance and disregard of the utorrent team.

I'm tired of people trying to control others for Orwellian cultural reasons. As clearly that is what this has become. I expect it out of megacorps, and the government they own, but seeing it here, in an OSS community, relevant to the torrent protocol, is repugnant in a special layer cake of crap kind of way.

I'm no anarchist, I Completely understand the point of regulations and controls, but this issues is tech specialists looking down on everyone else and exploiting their expert position accordingly.

I am just thankful for it's relative triviality though it does not at all bode well for the future direction of the client.

Some coders have clearly taken the "PC master race" meme way too seriously.

Telling end users what options they shouldn't have because "health" is like telling a library what books it should ban.

Frankly no one cares what you think is good for the "health of swarm" or the "good of society." That is beyond the scope of this context. Go get the torrent protocol changed if it's such a big deal. Change society, not the library.