In addition to the scheduler I would suggest another option.

The idea is, that after 1 or 2 years of activity, everybody has probably a few dozen
or maybe even hundreds of DL's on his Tixati file list.
So, there comes the question, how to seed. Do I seed all files together.
I tried that and my computer collapses because of overheating.
Or do I seed a few and how do I choose them.

Now my proposal is to seed the files in alphabethical order like the day of the month.
The month has about 30 days. And the english alphabeth has 28 letters, I think.
So lets make the first of the month I seed all files beginning with letter A.
At the second of the month I seed all files beginning with letter B.
At the 28. day I seed all files beginning with letter Z.
At the 29. day I seed all files with numbers.
At the 30. I seed T again, because of the large numbers of files beginning with THE.
I would seed from 0:00 midnight to 24:00 PST (pacific standard time)
In that way, there would not be any abandoned torrent no more,
because all torrents are seeded at least once a month.

What do you guys think ? Jay or nay ?

I have another idea :
The problem is, that a DL with many seeders doesn't need me.
But a DL with low number of seeders or no seeders would need my contribution.

Solution:
Tixati could add a new feature called "Auto-matic" in the Priority - Bandwidth option.
Right now there is UH - VH - H - AN - N - BN - L - VL - UL
The automatic feature (only for seeders) is that the completed DL's are checked
for the numbers of seeders and for the ration of seeders and peers.
The DL with lowest number of seeders gonna start to seed for lets say 30 minutes. Then check again.
Of course that option would be useful only for a long time seeding e.g. online all night long.

Automatic priority is a nice idea but I'm afraid it won't work very well because:
1. It is difficult to know exact numbers of seeds and peers. Public torrents often have many trackers, and usually each tracker returns different numbers, some peers use DHT only. There are trackers which don't give information on seeds/peers numbers. Some trackers store IPs for very long time, their seeds/peers numbers are outdated. Partial seeds are seen as peers by trackers.
2. Even if these numbers were accurate, they mean nothing. For example: there may be one seed with 100Mbit upload, who can easily seed to many peers, or 10 seeds uploading at 2kilo each, half of them with a closed port.

In my opinion, determining which seeding torrent needs higher priority by seeds/peers numbers, would be pretty much guessing. Also Tixati don't have some simpler options like: seeding for a set time, seeding up to set upload size (sometimes it's easier to use than ratio). I agree that Tixati needs some automatic system to prevent queue stalling by non active tasks.

Guest #1 - OP

I identify with your interest to seed as much as possible. I'd be very curious to know how many torrents you tried to seed, what your UPload BW is, and what platform (OS, CPU and RAM) you are running that went into meltdown trying to seed so many files.

I recently built a middling win 7 system and am seeding over 600 torrents - TaskInfo reports tixati is averaging 10% of CPU resources maxing out my set upload limit of 192kBytes/s. So seems I could seed lots more if I had more HD space for the files.

IF I had to limit the number of torrents I could seed at any given time, I wouldn't do it alphabetically. That is rather meaningless. I think along the lines of putting my resources where they are most needed or will have the most effect.

It is basically what Guest #2 outlined, putting the BW where it is needed, automatically.  I described this idea more here:


http://forum.tixati.com/support/761/

Pete, I'll respond to your concerns on that thread.

> Bugmagnet :

Dear Sir, with all respect due to your honorable work and effort,
I have to point out a key mathematical problem.

You are seeding 600 torrents with a total of 200 KB/s.
That means, each torrent get an average(!) of 0.3 KB/s or 300 Byte/s.
I seriously doubt with all respect, that a seeding with that low rate makes sense.
A piece has e.g. (exempli gratia) 2 MB. Then it takes 6000 seconds (2MB / 0.0003MB/s)
to finish just one single piece, that is almost 2 hours.
And a torrent might have 1000 pieces, makes 20000 hours or 1000 days,
that is 3 years day and night, if your computer last that long.
If you focus on (lets say) 10 to 20 torrents only, makes more sense for me.

For that reason, it would be very helpful, to filter the seeding torrents,
(which one makes most sense? ) as it is already discussed in different posts.

Have a good day.

(if you find an error in my math, Sorry and please correct it)

Please understand... while I am 'offering' 600+ torrents, far fewer are active.
Also, perhaps more importantly, I do 'filter' them by applying BW Priority as well as I can under the current design constraint conditions.
I raise the priority for torrents with few if any other seeds available and I lower the priority of those with lots of seeds, factoring in also the demand as evidenced by the number of peers trying to download.

When some new features are provided, such as sortable columns of the counts of seeds and peers, and some automated handling options I wrote about elsewhere, this becomes not an issue. With my methods, my BW is not spread equally across all 600+ torrents as you assume. I would agree, 300 Bytes/sec is not much.

With my primitive manual BW Priority allocations, I am seeing a couple torrents (With H assigned) drawing over 50 KiB/s and the top 15 torrents are getting at least 1 KiB/s. The rest get dribbles but that is better than getting nothing if I just stopped seeding them instead of merely lowering their priority. I am quite happy the way it has worked so far. Virtually all of the top 20 BW draws have been tagged for AN or above BW Priority. Very seldom do I see one I set to L priority appear within the top 20, one I am seeing now has over 100 seeds, over 200 peers and 14 are connected to me. With that many other sources, I am not feeling any twinge of guilt keeping them low on my list.

But the math is interesting.  Running 24/7 I am uploading about 8-10 GB/day or 250-300 GB/month. At that rate, it takes about 4 months to upload a terabyte. I don't know if I will fill the new 10TB server I am building but if i do, it will take some 2.5 years to upload it to others at my current ISP UL limit. About a year if i could afford their max service of 5 mb/s. But its all bits and bytes.. with people getting what they can from many, many users. That's what makes torrents tick so well. Even if my 'meager' UL BW was evenly spread across 600 torrents, that's ok. That's how torrents work. We don't rely on any single user (usually) for the entire torrent content. But interestingly, as I look, the top 3 torrents I am seeding right now have no other seeds at all. I am the only source.. and with my methods of assigning BW Priority to such orphaned torrents, these 3 are drawing well over 100 mb/s, over 1/2 my total UL limit. The math is working out quite well.