Endless Paradigm

Full Version: Downloading
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Nope :P  Anyone who uploads a 30GB file directly is a complete dumbass (assuming they successfully upload it).
yeah but that's due to the fact that you can't upload a 30gb file via direct download. anyway, imho direct download and especially HTTP downloads were meant for very small files such as images, small software or web pages.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually direct downloads are probably more reliable than torrents.
yeah, right. I've never had a torrent fail unless it was something unimportant and it wasn't seeded (which is basicly the only reason for a torrent to fail, no seeds, and can be predicted beforehand), and there are usually alternatives available. direct downloads however fail much more often (at least here they do), then again im using Firefox or IE (sometimes FF won't even get the download off mediafire) so i can't resume anything... but torrents never fail as far as I know, they just stop downloading because there are no sources. and that doenst happen often.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:No, speed is quite constant since you're downloading off a server. Torrent speeds vary a lot, however.
I meant that the speed from server to server varies a lot and can vary depending on the time of day/number of leechers off the server. however, the more ppl there are downloading a torrent the faster it goes, exactly the opposite. also, most torrents have enough upload throughput to max out most people's line, whereas direct download speeds can be limited by the server to ensure other ppl get some bandwidth as well

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not much of an issue.  Usually, right-click » download all does the trick. You can say that torrents, you have to download a .torrent file, then open up your torrent client, etc etc.
if I want 200 episodes of Sailor Moon, I need to right-click, download, 200 times (at least, because in my case you also have to point it to where you want to store it. but that can be automated). then, i have to check which downloads failed, and redownload them.

With torrents, I just 1. look for a torrent, 2. Run as from the server (opens torrent program automatically). basicly that's it, but I usually 3. Point the torrent tool to where I want it saved, 4. Set the priority for the first 50 eps to high and the priority for the last 50 eps to low, or chose to skip certain files entirely

2-4 clicks or 200-300 clicks? hmm. not much of an issue?

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Meh, I don't find archiving the least bit annoying...  In fact, it probably encourages smaller files (eg ISOs should always be archived).
apart from the cases where the files actually get smaller (because in those cases the torrents are usually archived as well), when you have to unarchive a file it takes up more than double the space, so if your harddisk tends to fill up quickly that can be a huge pain because u'll need to find temporary unpacking-space somewhere. it also costs time if the compression is high and the file is large or there are a lot of small files inside. also, sometimes it needs a password and you have to go look it up again and sometimes you can't find it at all. with torrents, the password is usually found in the description and if it is not there will be comments stating that its a bad torrent and you wouldnt download it in the first place.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:That's kinda right and wrong.  If a torrent has no seeds or leechers, then it's dead...
yeah, but it doesn't happen that often, and usually if it happens there are better torrents for the same thing around. theres very very little cases where something is SO impopular that there are no seeds at all anywhere.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not necessarily true either.  You can get private trackers, which do require membership just as much as some direct downloads do.
However, there's typically more content available on torrent.
those do exist, but they are usually to provide better download speeds than usual. however with direct downloads, the popular sites such as megaupload actually limit the download speeds, and require payment for normal speeds. by the way most private trackers are free anyways, and no1 ever uses the paid ones. this is due to the fact that people actually upload data themselves instead of one big server having to do it, so such costs don't exist with torrents.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:My take is that I typically find direct downloading _much_ faster than torrents (unless the server is _very_ poo poo, which isn't usually the case).
well, i don't. also, with a direct download, you depend on one server which may be very far away from you (like half a globe), but with torrents there are often many servers which are located all over the place.

also, torrents are less easily logged
and torrent uploads never fail (badly. a packet may get lost but that's neglectible)
Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually direct downloads are probably more reliable than torrents.
yeah, right. I've never had a torrent fail unless it was something unimportant and it wasn't seeded (which is basicly the only reason for a torrent to fail, no seeds, and can be predicted beforehand), and there are usually alternatives available. direct downloads however fail much more often (at least here they do), then again im using Firefox or IE (sometimes FF won't even get the download off mediafire) so i can't resume anything... but torrents never fail as far as I know, they just stop downloading because there are no sources. and that doenst happen often.
That could partly be due to your downloader.
Use something like FlashGet to download direct files - much more reliable.
I've seen this happen multiple times with torrent: you get to like 99.5%, then the download halts, as no-one has that last chunk...  Also, if the seeders/leechers disappear...

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:No, speed is quite constant since you're downloading off a server. Torrent speeds vary a lot, however.
I meant that the speed from server to server varies a lot and can vary depending on the time of day/number of leechers off the server. however, the more ppl there are downloading a torrent the faster it goes, exactly the opposite. also, most torrents have enough upload throughput to max out most people's line, whereas direct download speeds can be limited by the server to ensure other ppl get some bandwidth as well
If you're talking about Megaupload/Mediafire etc etc, the server speed is quite constant, as they aren't using some crappy server with very limited bandwidth.
As for the torrents, theoretically the more leechers, the faster it goes, but in practice, I find it otherwise.  Most people (on public trackers at least) use either ratio fakers, or upload limiters so they typically only upload at 1KB/sec, but download a lot faster.  The end result is that they leech more than they download, so having more leechers actually slows down the torrent.
Plus, at different times of the day, there'll still be different people seeding/leeching etc.

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not much of an issue.  Usually, right-click » download all does the trick. You can say that torrents, you have to download a .torrent file, then open up your torrent client, etc etc.
if I want 200 episodes of Sailor Moon, I need to right-click, download, 200 times (at least, because in my case you also have to point it to where you want to store it. but that can be automated). then, i have to check which downloads failed, and redownload them.
Right-click » Flashgot » Download All, filter to *.avi (or whatever).  Done.

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Meh, I don't find archiving the least bit annoying...  In fact, it probably encourages smaller files (eg ISOs should always be archived).
apart from the cases where the files actually get smaller (because in those cases the torrents are usually archived as well), when you have to unarchive a file it takes up more than double the space, so if your harddisk tends to fill up quickly that can be a huge pain because u'll need to find temporary unpacking-space somewhere. it also costs time if the compression is high and the file is large or there are a lot of small files inside. also, sometimes it needs a password and you have to go look it up again and sometimes you can't find it at all. with torrents, the password is usually found in the description and if it is not there will be comments stating that its a bad torrent and you wouldnt download it in the first place.
That's really personal choice...  I don't mind extracting.  You should always keep a decent amount of free HDD space, even if it's just for paging file purposes.  As for time, extracting a few GB doesn't take too long.
Yes, it's inconvenient, but, meh.
Passwords: I've rarely ever got encrypted archives before.

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:That's kinda right and wrong.  If a torrent has no seeds or leechers, then it's dead...
yeah, but it doesn't happen that often, and usually if it happens there are better torrents for the same thing around. theres very very little cases where something is SO impopular that there are no seeds at all anywhere.
Maybe all the stuff I search for isn't popular then...

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not necessarily true either.  You can get private trackers, which do require membership just as much as some direct downloads do.
However, there's typically more content available on torrent.
those do exist, but they are usually to provide better download speeds than usual. however with direct downloads, the popular sites such as megaupload actually limit the download speeds, and require payment for normal speeds. by the way most private trackers are free anyways, and no1 ever uses the paid ones. this is due to the fact that people actually upload data themselves instead of one big server having to do it, so such costs don't exist with torrents.
Private trackers tend to have better speed, plus better content at times.
Newsgroups are a way better source, but require membership fees.
As for Megaupload etc, I do believe there's ways of bypassing those limits.

Ge64 Wrote:
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:My take is that I typically find direct downloading _much_ faster than torrents (unless the server is _very_ poo poo, which isn't usually the case).
well, i don't. also, with a direct download, you depend on one server which may be very far away from you (like half a globe), but with torrents there are often many servers which are located all over the place.
My comparison:
At the library: Direct download (usually) = 160 - 1500KB/sec (some FTP servers with parallel connections)
Torrent = 1 - 70 KB/sec.
The fastest speed I've heard from torrents is around 400KB/sec

Ge64 Wrote:also, torrents are less easily logged
Well, I'm assuming you're not getting logged at all.  You could just as easily get logged for downloading the .torrent file.
Ge64 Wrote:and torrent uploads never fail (badly. a packet may get lost but that's neglectible)
I don't care about uploaders :P
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:That could partly be due to your downloader.
Use something like FlashGet to download direct files - much more reliable.
I've seen this happen multiple times with torrent: you get to like 99.5%, then the download halts, as no-one has that last chunk...  Also, if the seeders/leechers disappear...
if that happens, then you couldve seen that there was only 1 or 2 seeders or even 0 seeders when you started the torrent. seeders/peers don't 'disappear', they do decrease but it there are 5+ seeders for a torrent then you will be able to finish it (also depends on how new it is. if its a new torrent then it will have 1 seeder but there will be more later on)

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:As for the torrents, theoretically the more leechers, the faster it goes, but in practice, I find it otherwise.  Most people (on public trackers at least) use either ratio fakers, or upload limiters so they typically only upload at 1KB/sec, but download a lot faster.  The end result is that they leech more than they download, so having more leechers actually slows down the torrent. Plus, at different times of the day, there'll still be different people seeding/leeching etc.
in general, if there are about 50 seeders and 300 peers, then your line will be maxed without a problem. there are way more people than you think that actually DO upload while downloading, most users don't even care about changing those settings because the upload speed doesn't affect the download speed (more below by the way) in a negative way.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Right-click » Flashgot » Download All, filter to *.avi (or whatever).  Done.
apart from the fact that you would be downloading 200 files at once which is usually impossible, that still leaves you with redownloading the failed ones and managing 200 downloads rather than 1.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:You should always keep a decent amount of free HDD space, even if it's just for paging file purposes.
heh, i have my paging file on its own partition. same for my downloads. no need for free space...

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Maybe all the stuff I search for isn't popular then...
maybe you just don't know where to search?

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Private trackers tend to have better speed, plus better content at times.
Newsgroups are a way better source, but require membership fees.
As for Megaupload etc, I do believe there's ways of bypassing those limits.
so still torrents are better off, because they are totally free and don't require any kind of bypassing or other annoying stuff

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:My comparison:
At the library: Direct download (usually) = 160 - 1500KB/sec (some FTP servers with parallel connections)
Torrent = 1 - 70 KB/sec.
The fastest speed I've heard from torrents is around 400KB/sec
|
v
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:I don't care about uploaders :P
did you know that the bittorrent system is made so that peers upload more to the peers that upload to them as well? so if your speeds are chocolatety even though the torrent is healthy, its probably because you arent uploading. if you let it upload for a while, eventually the peers that are downloading from you will give you priority to download from them as well. that's also why torrents need time to 'get started'.
Some responses to ur statements.

Although I'm arguing for direct downloads, i stand by my decision that which one is better all depends on the situation. I'm just arguing against ur opinion that torrent is always better.


Ge64 Wrote:yeah but that's due to the fact that you can't upload a 30gb file via direct download. anyway, imho direct download and especially HTTP downloads were meant for very small files such as images, small software or web pages.

u can upload a 30gb file with direct download, if u really want to bother, so it's not impossible.

And there's no such thing as what HTTP is meant for. HTTP was there way before torrent or anything ewlse. Once upon a time, there was no torrent or any other P2P sharing system. HTTP is meant for everything.


Ge64 Wrote:but torrents never fail as far as I know, they just stop downloading because there are no sources. and that doenst happen often.

U also get a lot more fake stuff on torrents. And having no sources happens ALL THE TIME. It really depends on what ur trying to get. what i try to get mostly have <5 seeds.

Ge64 Wrote:also, most torrents have enough upload throughput to max out most people's line, whereas direct download speeds can be limited by the server to ensure other ppl get some bandwidth as well

Like with most of ur argument, that's assuming that ur torrent is popular. If ur torrent is not, more likely it'll go really slow. Unfortunately, most of the stuff i download go really slow. Fortunately, my internet is not fast, so the slowness is not too bad.

Like what I'm downloading now as an example. Tales of Phantasia (the animation) has like 2 seeds at max, and the speed really changes. yesterday, i was getting 10kb/s, right now, I'm getting 500b/s.  Fate-stay Night Character Image Songs = like 3kb/s average. random manga = slow or dead. a game = Fast, Office 2007 = very fast. Romsets = often dead.

So yeah, looking at what i download, u cannot say torrents are that fast fast or reliable all the time. Although torrent is way better than any other form of P2P at relabiliy.

Ge64 Wrote:if I want 200 episodes of Sailor Moon, I need to right-click, download, 200 times (at least, because in my case you also have to point it to where you want to store it. but that can be automated). then, i have to check which downloads failed, and redownload them.

...

2-4 clicks or 200-300 clicks? hmm. not much of an issue?

Do remember that one of the advantages of direct download is that it downloads the data in nice sequential order. thus u don't have to wait for something to be completely downloaded to start using it. So if u were to download a large archived file or something, u can check on it after u downloaded a little, to see if it's right. While with torrent, u have to wait until pretty much the whole thing is downloaded before u can get any information form it at all.

This is also relevant to ur 200 episodes of sailor moon, because direct download will get u the eps in order. U may argue that for torrent, u can always make torrent download the eps in sequential order as well, but that involves even more clickes than with http, which counters ur 1st argument on how torrent is simpler and requires less clicks.

And c'mon. direct downloads don'ty fail like even close to as often as u say it does. I rarely ever occurs to me. Unless if ur internet is that dodgey.

Ge64 Wrote:Set the priority for the first 50 eps to high and the priority for the last 50 eps to low, or chose to skip certain files entirely

u can on;y make sure to get the 1st 50 eps 1st, and then the last 50 that way. I can't get the 1st then 2nd then 3rd ...in sequential order, unless u keep setting priorities each time an ep completes, and that's more annoying than direct download.

Also, one big disadvantage of torrent is also the fact that u need to run a program in the background, which eats memory.

And also to get torrent to run at maximum efficiency, u need to configure the client and stuff. If ur ISP provider is gay, they may also block certain commonly used ports and stuff, so u have to also screw with that. People who are new to torrent is not likely to get max efficiency out of torrent.

Ge64 Wrote:it also costs time if the compression is high and the file is large or there are a lot of small files inside.

That time it takes to unarchive is nowhere close to the time u save on downloading a smaller file. Especially if the compression is high.

Go and try to download the N64 romset NOT ARCHIVED. If u cana ever find someone stupid enough not to archive it, it'll be over 100GB in size. The archived size is 4.8gb. Massive size difference cause there are multiple dumps of the same rom and that kind of stuff in there that compresses very well. So like 10 similar copies of the same 32mb rom will only compress to lets say, 20mb. compared to the 320mb raw, that's very good. Don't tell me u want to download 320mb just to save the time of extracting it.

Ge64 Wrote:when you have to unarchive a file it takes up more than double the space, so if your harddisk tends to fill up quickly that can be a huge pain because u'll need to find temporary unpacking-space somewhere.

that's why u leave most of ur stuff archived. That way it saves space in ur HDD. If all the stuff i have are all unarchived, i would need a HDD like 3x the size. Stuff ur not going to use for a while may as well be archived.


Ge64 Wrote:yeah, but it doesn't happen that often, and usually if it happens there are better torrents for the same thing around. theres very very little cases where something is SO impopular that there are no seeds at all anywhere.

Happens way too often. And if something is that unpopular, there would not be multiple torrents of it. Happens like 1/4 of the time for me.

I guess wee must download very different stuff. ^.^


Ge64 Wrote:those do exist, but they are usually to provide better download speeds than usual. however with direct downloads, the popular sites such as megaupload actually limit the download speeds, and require payment for normal speeds.

Private tracker = u may have to pay/ get invited or something. And also u have to seed to a certian requirement. Seeding that rato for everything u download is VERY annoying. Way more trouble than direct downloads ever give u. Especially if ur download speed is that much faster that ur upload speed.

Provate tracker also = way less people get to download = slower speed than normal server.

+ the limit for megaupload of 45kb/s (360kbit/s) is fast enough for me anyways. my internet connection can never hit that speed anyways.

Ge64 Wrote:this is due to the fact that people actually upload data themselves instead of one big server having to do it, so such costs don't exist with torrents.

With direct download, people who host the files pay. u don't. so whichever way for u, it's free.

Ge64 Wrote:and torrent uploads never fail (badly. a packet may get lost but that's neglectible)

Direct download that doesn't get downloaded often = good. that's good for the server. less strain.

Torrent that doesn't get downloaded often = dead.

Torrents also involve waste. like when 2 people send u the same stuff, or like when people send u bad stuff. The waste percentage is generally like around 2-5%, up to 20% if ur connected to like a LOT of people. So ur basically downloading 5% more on each download.


Ok, as i say again, I'm not anti torrent. I'm just trying to say that there is no absolute best at everything. They have their own purposes. I actually like torrent a lot, even thought my downloads seems to die all the time, i can never get these downloads directly anyways, so it's still good. ^.^


If i had to make a choice on what's better, like if someone forces me, it would be torrents. All my above arguments cannot counter the fact that torrents allows u to downoad from a way larger range of stuff. Lots of stuff that can't be found anywhere else. ^.^ Dealing with the slowness > getting nothing.
Assassinator Wrote:And there's no such thing as what HTTP is meant for. HTTP was there way before torrent or anything ewlse. Once upon a time, there was no torrent or any other P2P sharing system. HTTP is meant for everything.

"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a communications protocol used to transfer or convey information on the World Wide Web. Its original purpose was to provide a way to publish and retrieve HTML hypertext pages." «- HTML pages??? arent those usually under 1mb???

once upon a time, there werent even images on web pages. and once upon a time much later, web pages were still under 1MB including images. once upon a time, the time when they were developing HTTP, having to transfer more than 5MB was unimaginable! whoever, would download an entire book over HTTP, they thought! now, ppl download entire MOVIES over http. sheesh, don't tell me they actually kept that in mind when they were developing it...

Assassinator Wrote:but torrents never fail as far as I know, they just stop downloading because there are no sources. and that doenst happen often.

nah, ive never had anything fake on torrents... i used to get a lot of fake stuff on kazaa etc though but not on torrents :/ also, to prevent this, almost all torrent sites allow people to post comments so you can immediately see if something is not working or not what it says.

Assassinator Wrote:Like with most of ur argument, that's assuming that ur torrent is popular. If ur torrent is not, more likely it'll go really slow. Unfortunately, most of the stuff i download go really slow. Fortunately, my internet is not fast, so the slowness is not too bad.
so then ur line is maxed :P lol. also, well, the odds of your torrent being popular enough are big because otherwise you wouldnt download it yourself either. if u really like strange things then theres nothing i can do about it :P

Assassinator Wrote:yesterday, i was getting 10kb/s, right now, I'm getting 500b/s.  Fate-stay Night Character Image Songs = like 3kb/s average. random manga = slow or dead. a game = Fast, Office 2007 = very fast. Romsets = often dead.
Which program are you using?if torrents don't go higher than 20-30kB/s then you havent configured your router properly. direct does have the advantage here because it is already properly configured/requires no configuring... but if you can't configure your network.. well... you don't get to enjoy torrents :P

Assassinator Wrote:Do remember that one of the advantages of direct download is that it downloads the data in nice sequential order. thus u don't have to wait for something to be completely downloaded to start using it. So if u were to download a large archived file or something, u can check on it after u downloaded a little, to see if it's right. While with torrent, u have to wait until pretty much the whole thing is downloaded before u can get any information form it at all.
meh, sometimes archives won't open if theyre incomplete because they are corrupted. but you do have a point though..
however...
with torrents, in the case that the torrent is not archived and the direct download is, you can chose certain files to have higher priority than others (or omit certain files), but with direct downloads you have to download the whole thing first.

Assassinator Wrote:This is also relevant to ur 200 episodes of sailor moon, because direct download will get u the eps in order. U may argue that for torrent, u can always make torrent download the eps in sequential order as well, but that involves even more clickes than with http, which counters ur 1st argument on how torrent is simpler and requires less clicks.
if you're downloading the 200 files at the same time, theres no telling which ones will finish first... which is the same case as with torrents (if you don't set up the priorities hey will all download randomly). so sure you can chose to download certain files first with direct download, but that defeats the purpose of the mass-download function zinga mentioned cause you still have to set up the order manually, as with torrents. and with torrents, its all in one window which is much more organised.

Assassinator Wrote:And c'mon. direct downloads don'ty fail like even close to as often as u say it does. I rarely ever occurs to me. Unless if ur internet is that dodgey.
my internet tends to d/c sometimes due to a crappy modem (wee just got  anew one though) or my brother d/c'ing the network switch. or just because my pc crashes, or freezes for a moment... all these and even just randomly cause my direct downloads to fail. with torrents, all these are not a problem because they download in pieces instead of in one file.

even if it doesn't happen often to you, which is great, these things do cause direct downloads to fail but the do not cause torrents to fail, so torrents still have the advantage. as far as I know, torrents can't really 'fail' to the extent that you have to start over from scratch with downloading (like direct downloads, even with some resume capable managers in my experience), they just fail to complete if there are no seeds. but that is a completely different story, i don't consider it 'failing'.

Assassinator Wrote:u can on;y make sure to get the 1st 50 eps 1st, and then the last 50 that way. I can't get the 1st then 2nd then 3rd ...in sequential order, unless u keep setting priorities each time an ep completes, and that's more annoying than direct download.
yeah, true, but i won't start watching until a number of eps has finished so it doesn't matter at all. if you really want direct downloads to finish in the order 1-200, then you'll have to keep starting the next download every so often as well.

Assassinator Wrote:Also, one big disadvantage of torrent is also the fact that u need to run a program in the background, which eats memory.
huh what? 1. if you're using your browser to download, then torrents definately have a bigger advantage because browser's download managers lack many functions torrent software has. or, 2. if you're using a download manager, you're running a program in the background as well so it doesn't really make sense....

also, because the bittorrent system was especially programmed to download large files, it uses less memory than HTTP, which was not.

Assassinator Wrote:And also to get torrent to run at maximum efficiency, u need to configure the client and stuff. If ur ISP provider is gay, they may also block certain commonly used ports and stuff, so u have to also screw with that. People who are new to torrent is not likely to get max efficiency out of torrent.
true, however you do exaggerate the configuring of the software itself imo. good torrent programs install themselves and associate with .torrent files, and work out of the box and are easy to set up. there is no need for them to integrate into the browser at all (unlike download managers), because the browser opens .torrent files automatically after downloading them (at least after you tell it to once it will), and the torrent program will open up.

about the network/router part, yeah it needs some configuring but its worth it, and if you don't know how... well... sorry... theres entire sites dedicated to providing step by step instructions for doing that, if you still can't do it then well, no torrents for you.

Assassinator Wrote:That time it takes to unarchive is nowhere close to the time u save on downloading a smaller file. Especially if the compression is high.
k but just for the record that's not really an advantage for direct downloads cause where appropriate, torrents are also archived.

Assassinator Wrote:Go and try to download the N64 romset NOT ARCHIVED. If u cana ever find someone stupid enough not to archive it, it'll be over 100GB in size. The archived size is 4.8gb. Massive size difference cause there are multiple dumps of the same rom and that kind of stuff in there that compresses very well. So like 10 similar copies of the same 32mb rom will only compress to lets say, 20mb. compared to the 320mb raw, that's very good. Don't tell me u want to download 320mb just to save the time of extracting it.
don't forget winrar has a function to archive every file into a seperate archive (and also to unpack a selection of archives in one click to different folders (or the same folder)), so with torrents, you can have the best of both (smaller files, but still being able to select which particular roms you want).

Assassinator Wrote:that's why u leave most of ur stuff archived. That way it saves space in ur HDD. If all the stuff i have are all unarchived, i would need a HDD like 3x the size. Stuff ur not going to use for a while may as well be archived.
i do the opposite, before i copy stuff to my storage partition i unpack it. because when i use something, i don't want to go unpacking it (or finding out i can't because i don't have the disk space at that moment). it may take up space, but id rather throw out stuff i really don't use now and then than have to unpack everything when i need something.


Assassinator Wrote:Happens way too often. And if something is that unpopular, there would not be multiple torrents of it. Happens like 1/4 of the time for me.

again, either you don't know where to search for certain stuff or you like really strange stuff. but even for really strange stuff, theres lots of private trackers. not everything is listed on the large sites, you know...

Assassinator Wrote:I guess wee must download very different stuff. ^.^
judging by the above examples
mmmyeah
but i doubt theres no trackers for ur kind of stuff.


Assassinator Wrote:Private tracker = u may have to pay/ get invited or something.
forget about paying, ive never seen a tracker that requires payment except for scams. also, if you like a certain thing, then you have some contacts who also like it and they may be able to get an invite to that tracker. its never really that hard to get into a private tracker...

Assassinator Wrote:And also u have to seed to a certian requirement. Seeding that rato for everything u download is VERY annoying. Way more trouble than direct downloads ever give u. Especially if ur download speed is that much faster that ur upload speed.
true, but i havent really found it a problem at all because, if your download speed is 8 times as much as your upload speed, well i guess you use private trackers for 1/8th (in GB) of the total of what you download, so in the end, if you keep seeding those torrents that require seeding, even when ur not downloading, it should break even pretty quickly. i don't have any problems with this at all somehow. when i don't need anything from a private tracker, i upload anyway so that i have some reserve for when i need something again. ive got a ratio of more than 2 on every private tracker that has ratio restrictions, so imho its not really much of an issue.

also, just be nice and contribute :P if you don't want to upload, torrent is not for u.

Assassinator Wrote:Provate tracker also = way less people get to download = slower speed than normal server.
not only untrue, but ppl who take the time to get into a private tracker usually care to upload WAAAY more often than on anonymous public trackers where there are many leechers. also, people with 100mbps uploads are found on the private trackers because that's where they get credit for uploading.

Assassinator Wrote:+ the limit for megaupload of 45kb/s (360kbit/s) is fast enough for me anyways. my internet connection can never hit that speed anyways.
well, mine can, and just now ive been downloading an iso @ 80kB which is not really a lot but if it were 45kB that would mean i had to wait another day for it and i couldnt use it now...

Assassinator Wrote:With direct download, people who host the files pay. u don't. so whichever way for u, it's free.
sometimes, but i mean with torrents you can't be limited or restricted because many servers do require payment for optimal download speeds etc. and all because its not cooperative like torrent, where the upload bandwidth is free. servers do cost money, and sometimes ur lucky but sometimes you arent and you need to pay.

Assassinator Wrote:Direct download that doesn't get downloaded often = good. that's good for the server. less strain.
they do get pruned.... sometimes

Assassinator Wrote:Torrents also involve waste. like when 2 people send u the same stuff, or like when people send u bad stuff. The waste percentage is generally like around 2-5%, up to 20% if ur connected to like a LOT of people. So ur basically downloading 5% more on each download.
my client happens to give a lot of detailed info regarding that. of a 2690MB file i downloaded today, 28.4MB was wasted due to 9 pieces failing to download. not only is that just a bit more than 1% rather than 5%, it also indicated that torrents are really reliable because they hash check every piece before they write it to your file, which HTTP/FTP does not. at best, it checks the entire file after it finishes. also, when the torrent file is made you can specify the piece size (bigger is faster, but more wasted space when one fails, smaller is slower but less wasted space). there is also a function for selecting the optimal piece size for the files in your torrent. see how bittorrent is thought through for large files?

by the way, im not trying to argue with anyone or anything (as always), just trying to explain that in my view torrents are much better for most large file downloads.
Ge64 Wrote:even if it doesn't happen often to you, which is great, these things do cause direct downloads to fail but the do not cause torrents to fail, so torrents still have the advantage. as far as I know, torrents can't really 'fail' to the extent that you have to start over from scratch with downloading (like direct downloads, even with some resume capable managers in my experience), they just fail to complete if there are no seeds. but that is a completely different story, i don't consider it 'failing'.

Yeah, it's true that torrent can't really fail completely. The worse that can happen is all details of the download getting completely lost, then u can still reload the torrent, point it to ur half downloaded file, it'll do a check, and continue. One of the truely wonderful things about torrent.

But if u use a good download manager, u also have some kind of fail resistance with direct downloads. Althought still not as fail resistent as torrents.

Ge64 Wrote:nah, ive never had anything fake on torrents... i used to get a lot of fake stuff on kazaa etc though but not on torrents :/ also, to prevent this, almost all torrent sites allow people to post comments so you can immediately see if something is not working or not what it says.

Yeah, although sometimes it can be missleading. It's surprising how many people don't know how to mount a MDF/MDS file, and say it's bad, or something stupid like that.

Ge64 Wrote:so then ur line is maxed :P lol. also, well, the odds of your torrent being popular enough are big because otherwise you wouldnt download it yourself either. if u really like strange things then theres nothing i can do about it :P

It's more the stange things. :P

My line is not maxed, but i find ways of maxing it, like downloading many torrents at the same time. so it doesn't matter that much.


Ge64 Wrote:Which program are you using?if torrents don't go higher than 20-30kB/s then you havent configured your router properly. direct does have the advantage here because it is already properly configured/requires no configuring... but if you can't configure your network.. well... you don't get to enjoy torrents :P

I can configure my network. The problem is not not being able to configure the network, the problem is having like being connected to like only 2 people, 1 of whom doesn't send u anything.


Ge64 Wrote:meh, sometimes archives won't open if theyre incomplete because they are corrupted. but you do have a point though..
however...

Winrar almost never extracts stuff from incomplete archives, and only extracts something if the whole thing can be extracted without error. But the 7zip file mamager extracts pretty much everything out of the archive when it's possible, even if what's extracted is only partial, or corrupted, or whatever, as long as u have beginning of the file.

So often, while downloading something, i make a copy of the partially downloaded archive, and extract some partially complete imgage/video out of it, and then see if it's all right. With torrents u can't really do that. But that's not too important anyways.

Ge64 Wrote:with torrents, in the case that the torrent is not archived and the direct download is, you can chose certain files to have higher priority than others (or omit certain files), but with direct downloads you have to download the whole thing first.

If the direct download is not archived, u can choose which files to download. So in the end, it's pretty much the same.


Ge64 Wrote:huh what? 1. if you're using your browser to download, then torrents definately have a bigger advantage because browser's download managers lack many functions torrent software has. or, 2. if you're using a download manager, you're running a program in the background as well so it doesn't really make sense....

Yeah, u got a point there.

All small HTTP stuff i download with browser. Large stuff with flashget.


Ge64 Wrote:true, however you do exaggerate the configuring of the software itself imo. good torrent programs install themselves and associate with .torrent files, and work out of the box and are easy to set up. there is no need for them to integrate into the browser at all (unlike download managers), because the browser opens .torrent files automatically after downloading them (at least after you tell it to once it will), and the torrent program will open up.

about the network/router part, yeah it needs some configuring but its worth it, and if you don't know how... well... sorry... theres entire sites dedicated to providing step by step instructions for doing that, if you still can't do it then well, no torrents for you.

Oh, it's easy for me to configure everything, but that's cause i have a decent amount of knowledge about computers and stuff. For some beginners though, it would be very hard.

I'm using utorrent, and that pretty much guides u thro the setup, but u still need to configure some settings, like tell it how fast ur internet is, and stuff like that. I know a rediculous amount of people who don't know how fast their internet is, or think it's 100mbit/s because that's what right clicking on the icon and reading the LAN properties gives them.

And there's always the problem of configuring firewall/router and I've heard that some ISP providers are really gay, and just block out some commonly used ports completely.

And at most public locations, torrent will be blocked. That's a big problem for me, who leech most of my poo poo by sticking my usb into the back of a library computer, and letting flashget run in the background. And then go and do something else, and come and get the USB later :P.

Ge64 Wrote:don't forget winrar has a function to archive every file into a seperate archive (and also to unpack a selection of archives in one click to different folders (or the same folder)), so with torrents, you can have the best of both (smaller files, but still being able to select which particular roms you want).

This is irellevant, but with roms, almost noone uses winrar. (atleast right now. back then, everyone used winrar) Lower compression rates than 7zip, and doesn't handle the multiple copies of very similar data as well as 7zip, which is something 7zip does VERY well. And the problem of not being able to compress stuff into seperate archives is solved by using a tool called goodmerge, a command line tool to 7zip an entire romset seperating every different game (all the roms of that game) into a seperate archive, leaving u with an archive for each seperate bunch of similar roms.

Ge64 Wrote:i do the opposite, before i copy stuff to my storage partition i unpack it. because when i use something, i don't want to go unpacking it (or finding out i can't because i don't have the disk space at that moment). it may take up space, but id rather throw out stuff i really don't use now and then than have to unpack everything when i need something.

I generally leave all the stuff I'm not going to touch in a while compressed, like all my CD images and stuff. When i need it, i extract and use. Ofcourse, stuff i use all the time i leave unpacked.

And about having disk space problems, i don't know how leaving everything unpacked helps u in that. unless if u mean by dumping everything ur not going to use. Well, i just can't seem to be able to dump anything. I just compress the stuff i won't need, and maybe burn them onto DVD.

Ge64 Wrote:again, either you don't know where to search for certain stuff or you like really strange stuff. but even for really strange stuff, theres lots of private trackers. not everything is listed on the large sites, you know...

There are private trackers to get stuff like romsets from, but since my connection is not fast anyways. Slow speeds don't matter that much. just download multiple things at the same time.

But some stuff is just hard to find. Like recently, i was looking for the novels of the warcraft game. can't find it anywhere. And i imagine that if i did, it's be dead/almost dead anyways.

Some stuff in private trackers seems to be mirrored onto public trackers. So if i can't connect to the private one, all the mirrored ones will still work.

Another reason i use eMule, even though the ed2k system IMO is inferrior, and i absolutely HATE it's queue system. i use it cause ed2k is heaps popular in asia, and i can eaisly find asian stuff there.


Ge64 Wrote:True, but i havent really found it a problem at all because, if your download speed is 8 times as much as your upload speed, well i guess you use private trackers for 1/8th (in GB) of the total of what you download, so in the end, if you keep seeding those torrents that require seeding, even when ur not downloading, it should break even pretty quickly. i don't have any problems with this at all somehow. when i don't need anything from a private tracker, i upload anyway so that i have some reserve for when i need something again. ive got a ratio of more than 2 on every private tracker that has ratio restrictions, so imho its not really much of an issue.

My seeding speed is 64kbit/s basically download speed. And u cannot seed at max speed, cause that slows ur download speeds, cause all ur requests and all that gets chocked, and takes longer to get out. So u kinda see why I'm rather reluctant to seed to a high ratio with large files. Even if i permanently seed at max speed without slowing my download, which is what I'm doing right now, i cannot hope to acheive a seed ratio of 1. And some private trackers need 1.5 or 2. Ofcourse, not everything u download will be from a private tracker, so selective seeding may work.

Ge64 Wrote:also, just be nice and contribute :P if you don't want to upload, torrent is not for u.

I only really bother seeding for the files that are not very popular. I never seed for files that already have like 200 seeds. But since a lot of what i download is not very popular, like less than 10 seeds, so pretty much I'm always seeding. And that's assuming my upload can keep up. If it can't keep up, then i just move on.

Ge64 Wrote:not only untrue, but ppl who take the time to get into a private tracker usually care to upload WAAAY more often than on anonymous public trackers where there are many leechers. also, people with 100mbps uploads are found on the private trackers because that's where they get credit for uploading.

I never really used a private trackers, so i made that comment on speculation :P.

And what is the credit for? downloading more stuff?


Ge64 Wrote:sometimes, but i mean with torrents you can't be limited or restricted because many servers do require payment for optimal download speeds etc. and all because its not cooperative like torrent, where the upload bandwidth is free. servers do cost money, and sometimes ur lucky but sometimes you arent and you need to pay.

I don't find that too much of a problem. Maybe cause my internet is not fast enough. But the limited speed suffices pretty well. As for the library, their speed is very fast, so i just set many direct downloads from different servers. Like i do with torrents. If 1 doesn't hit the speed, use more. lol. Althought if u really want a large file quickly, then u'll have to think of other ways.

Torrents just have different kinds of restrictions. Instead of download speed, it has stuff like seed ratio for private trackers.


Ge64 Wrote:they do get pruned.... sometimes

but if they were to become that unpopular, then the torrent equivalent would be dead too. So same thing. While if it's just mildly unpopular, it's all fine, while the torrent will still have trouble.


Ge64 Wrote:my client happens to give a lot of detailed info regarding that. of a 2690MB file i downloaded today, 28.4MB was wasted due to 9 pieces failing to download. not only is that just a bit more than 1% rather than 5%, it also indicated that torrents are really reliable because they hash check every piece before they write it to your file, which HTTP/FTP does not. at best, it checks the entire file after it finishes.

How much is wasted depends on ur speed. When ur speed is poo poo, the more likely that u get choked or whatever and stuff gets lost, or partial stuff needs to be thrown away. It;s generally when a lot of people are connected to u, too much than u can handle, when stuff gets wasted. When they all try to send u stuff at the same time. That threshold of how much people u can handle is obviously larger when ur connection is faster. So yeah, for the almost dead torrents, i almost get no waste. normally, like 1-2%, while for the torrents where I'm connectd to like 50 people, the waste is around 5% or higher.

Which kinda also highlights the importance to configure ur torrent propperly. If someone on dialup doesn't set a max cap, and lets 300 people connect to him at the same time, he'll get nothing done.

Another source of waste is people sending u corrupted/bad stuff. But most clients have auto-ban functions these days to ban people when they repeatedly send u bad stuff, so u shouldn't get too much waste from that.

Ge64 Wrote:also, when the torrent file is made you can specify the piece size (bigger is faster, but more wasted space when one fails, smaller is slower but less wasted space). there is also a function for selecting the optimal piece size for the files in your torrent.

Like choosing the best size for ur raid0 array. :mdr:


Ge64 Wrote:by the way, im not trying to argue with anyone or anything (as always), just trying to explain that in my view torrents are much better for most large file downloads.

Depends still. on factors such as how nicely the files are partitioned on direct downloads, what kinds of files, 1 large file, or lots of  seperate small files, how popular are the files, what's ur internet speed... IMO way too many factors to make such a generalization.
Assassinator Wrote:...
And what is the credit for? downloading more stuff?
...

i mean credit as in it is appreciated (and they get a huge ratio so they get vip statusses and stuff)
Zinga Burga Wrote:Actually direct downloads are probably more reliable than torrents
I can't deny that. Torrents are a bit unpredictable. I prefer direct downloads for anything that isn't in more than 1 part.
Double post
Also, for those who use torrents: What client do you use?
michaelp Wrote:
Zinga Burga Wrote:Actually direct downloads are probably more reliable than torrents
I can't deny that. Torrents are a bit unpredictable. I prefer direct downloads for anything that isn't in more than 1 part.
Double post
Also, for those who use torrents: What client do you use?

I and I think most people use uTorrent.
I use Azureus, I prefer it over the other clients I've tried.  When I started using Azureus it was the most configurable client, that may have changed though.  I haven't tried anything else for a while (few years), so my opinion on other clients isn't too relevant.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reference URL's