I think Tixati should have an option to upload in sequential order because it would help much for those who want to immediately see the film when it was still this to download the User to force the download to aggressive sequentially!


In my vision would be more beneficial to network because the new piece of mail would always the rarest, the seeders always had the most rare piece!

random upload nowadays should not use but always sequential


Think about that for a new version 2.28

I even think that the program will be lighter in terms of upload processing, if he so those who check if the customer asks for more distruibuida or rare piece! Imagine all sequential not much to choose the next piece will always be the rarest!

Thank user of Portugal!

user already has option to download sequentially and it makes no sense for uploader to do the same ... what you want is direct transfer not bittorrent

So what's the problem?


I know you have this option, do not see any problem if Tixati load sequence!

I can say that random collection and high comparisons made by the program to see which unlimited number of parts is the rarest to download?

So when you use aggressive force extragar examine the logic, for welcome iram already distributed when other rare pieces still not be as good!

I, in my opinion, if all use of the user so that would be great ally best desenpenho benefit as the next part program would always be the rarest, soon to be thousands of comparisons to see him play more often!


With only two options was more practical !!


Part 1 Part 2? according to the logic would be more efficient me!


If you tell me another way to upload and super efficient and I'm asking lose to her, tell me where to try to understand!



It has some logic that receives part number 1 and then immediately receive the part 289? Best where?

My guilt is not knowing how to program ideas do not fail me!

does this make sense?


wiki.vuze.com/w/Sequential_downloading_is_bad

Make a version with upload this mode to take the doubt!

You do can actually prove that harm to bitorrent?


From 3 pieces to choose from the latest being the rarest the best distributed the first and the second along the way to stay well distributed where you have doubt que bitorrente about it?

If you prove that gets worse I give up my idea!

Just because vuze wrong to say that he prove it without being in theory to actually do much harm to torrent?

You do not actually able to prove that damages torrent exam, because he did not do any damage, if you ask sequential piece, the last piece of work and then download the most well distributed never hurt torrent!


You do can prove something in torrents to be original is too slow to upload the torrent publishes all users to see have the same random parts, but if it distributed in sequential to hurt this torrent?

I have never seen the point of sequential downloading I understand it's gonna take time to download, and plan accordingly.

If a user wants to they have that option, there is no point in forcing that on a user as a seed though.

Sequential downloading i. e. interferes with natural-seeding / super-seeding. With super-seeding, the seeder wants to upload every piece he selects only once and the seeders-clients decides which piece goes to one torrent. If the peer uses sequential DL, DL will fail, because his client requests a different piece than the seeder is willing to give. Thought I'd post this on how sequential downloading i. e. can do damage to torrenting.

Popcorn Time is torrent client with default sequential download.

Sequential downloading:
1.Hammers seeds and peers for "common" pieces, especially the 1st and last pieces in a torrent...when everyone else in the torrent swarm may be desperate for "rare" pieces near the end of the torrent. Seeds will be forced to upload the same starting pieces in a torrent to each new sequential downloader that arrives, leaving less time+upload for these seeds to send rare pieces to other peers.
2.Penalizes other peers trying to play fair (those peers prioritize randomly downloading rarest pieces) -- because sequential downloaders will usually not be interested in rare pieces and will not upload as much to other peers playing fair *because they gave it little*!
3.Do not even "play nice" with each other! 2 "pure" sequential downloaders (that only download the next piece in sequence) will NEVER tit-for-tat (give something to get something) with each other since at no time will both peers have a piece the other wants. So the one that gets further ahead will be pure leeched by ALL the other sequential downloaders as they try to catch up. That means the one in the lead will have to download even more from seeds that should be giving out only rarest pieces!
4.Seeds will be unable to use super seeding/initial seeding mode because sequential downloaders may refuse to download or will be very slow about sharing their rarest piece with other sequential downloaders.
5.Sequential downloading can slow down a torrent swarm to the point that it dies early if/when the last seeds leave after reaching their upload ratio. The remaining peers on the torrent will be very likely to not have enough pieces between them to complete the torrent, even if there's more than 10 of them. This becomes an extremely bad problem on torrents over 1 GB in size. I've seen the last few pieces in a torrent become exceedingly rare even when only about 2 out of 10 peers were sequential downloaders. Fortunately, I was already a seed by that time.

Torrent Streaming is even worse than sequential downloading!
Being able to play a video torrent as it downloads requires a download speed faster than the playback speed (unless the download has a long head-start) and MUCH higher than most seeds and peers can upload, so it's unsustainable if everyone does it.
The likelihood of someone stopping the torrent very shortly after downloading+playing it is much greater, not giving the last few pieces of the torrent enough time to be uploaded to others. The already-overloaded (or missing) seeds will be the only ones with the last few pieces in the torrent...so other peers will take much longer to completely download the torrent.

OP guest

You have to look at the big picture, not simply how you are affected or want it to work. Simply be patient and accept that file sharing will be more reliable overall using the standard BT protocol of sending pieces out of sequence.

example: 3 pieces and 3 peers.
Peer 1 has piece 1, peer 2 has piece 2 and peer 3 has piece 3.
Seed goes away after sending all 3 pieces that make up the full file.
All 3 users can share what they have and complete the file, without needing the seed.

If seed sent in sequence, all peers would have piece 1. What good is 3 copies of the same piece? With this, peers can't help themselves recompose the full file.

example: 3 pieces and 3 peers.
Peer 1 has piece 1, peer 2 has piece 2 and peer 3 has piece 3.


peer 1 peer   give pieces are 2 and 3

Peer 2 give piece  1 are 3

peer 3 give  2  are 1




which the sequential problem?

if all users are sequential existed no problems whatsoever!

I also can give you examples of when the orignal seed have slow upload when this happens all users have the same parts of the pieces but never sequential!

the problem is even in separate pieces to far from the sequence!

Can you tell me how much a piece to be distributed and cease to be rare?


I for one other competitor in software knows from 5 parts is no longer rare, bitorrente in fact I do not know when to begin no longer considered rare piece!!


Do so in theory prove myself some chance to happen as described by you, but make a version with sequential upload to prove to me that it will give wrong ..


If you prove that actually the wrong I give up my idea!

I've thought of this before that an initial seed (super seeder) could find it useful to push pieces out to the swarm sequentially + front/back-first to allow the downloaders the ability to be able to start play back of the content when enough data has been received.  The initial seed need only monitor for the rarest pieces as usual, but just bias towards sending out the lowest numbered + end pieces first.