Thank you very much for bringing us 2.1, I have collected some ideas for further development and I hope to be able to contribute someway to this release. And don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with your work already, but I see room for improvement and want to help you guys!

Improved speed bars, with graphical style like amaroks track played time and using some average values for the last minutes or so. And also using the same bandwidth limits as used in global settings.

Faster upstart and shutdown (shutdown time seems to have increased from around 1 second in 2.0.3 to 10+ in 2.1)

Some usability improvements within the Groups functionality (and why is there only one button "Groups" in the most left side of main window, the space under could be used for some of the actual groups like Downloads and Uploads).

Option to move completed torrents to user specified directory (on a per torrent basis) and of course continue seeding from the new place.

Improving the torrents list, Maybe each torrent could take up two lines much like the download manager in Firefox. My screen isn't wide enough to show all information horizontally but there is lot of space vertically even when downloading and seeding 15 torrents. Perhaps two different views would be good?

Remove or redesign the way queue manager work, hard to understand and pretty "unsmart" - it needs to understand if all the active torrents are stalled and start downloading others.

The next 2.2 release probably won't bring some revolutionary features since we'll be also focused on KDE4 version of KTorrent. But we do plan to implement some great new features.

As for your suggestions, we'll see if we can find some time for speedbars but what worries me is your extremely slow shutdown time. My KT shuts down in less than 2-3 seconds with ~20 torrents. So, your behavior is really weird.

"Move completed torrents" feature is also planned for a really long time and I think we'll have to implement it for 2.2.

QueueManager redesign is also planned for KDE4 version.

My KTorrent 2.1rc1 shuts down in a few seconds, too. Today I stopped all the torrents and KT froze for at least half minute... Don't know why (maybe because I am running Xgl and compiling gcc in one window and something else in another window while having 20 konquerors open and ... ). Anyway, that is not worth noticing. KT is quite fast in starting and shutting down (at least 20 times faster than Azureus ).

Anyway, I wanted to suggest a new feature that could be useful, I think. Azureus has an option to specify allowed bandwith for every torrent individually. I find that is a very nice feature and I would like to see that in some future release of KTorrent. I have just checked-out the svn trunk and if I find a nice place to put a plugin that could do that, I'll send you the patches.

Keep up the good work
Filip

We are planning to implement per torrent speed limits, but not as a plugin. It should be implemented on application level. So, if you can help that would be cool.

Ivan wrote:We are planning to implement per torrent speed limits, but not as a plugin. It should be implemented on application level. So, if you can help that would be cool.

I've looked at the source a little bit and I have realized that this should be implemented in libktorrent . I will look the source a little bit more so that I get acquainted with it to see how it could be implemented. And, yes, I
am interested to help.

Speed limiting is done in the SocketMonitor class.

First of all, it's really good that torrents can be added to several groups. It's easier to categorize that way.

Now, I'm sure some of you have noticed that some KDE apps have checkboxes in menus. (Akregator has it for the Quick filter setting.) I think it would be really useful to have checkboxes in the "Add to group" context menu. That way one could more easily add and remove torrents to/from groups, and it would be much easier to see if a torrent is already added to a group etc.

I've mentioned this before, but I also think it would be really useful with a Quick filter in KTorrent. I'm one of those users that has lots and lots of torrents open.

I really appreciate your work. Thanks!

I run ktorrent on a box which I am usually away from, and hence I rarely if ever see the "file completed" dialog. I would like it very much if KT could send me an email when it finishes a downloading file.

I first saw this feature in the multi-protocol client MLdonkey. If you supply an email address in the configuration panel, it sends a mail which looks like this:

Code: Select all

mldonkey has completed the download of:

File: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Size: 733839360 bytes
Hash: urn:bt:AY[...]YF
File was downloaded in 14d 15h 14m 13s

Something similar was recently implemented in aMule in the form of event hooks which you can configure to call external scripts (cf, http://www.amule.org/wiki/index.php/Events. I created that page and contributed the shell script example).

Alas, I can't code C++ otherwise I would offer to write it myself. But I would be happy to test it if someone else does.

I would love to see some kind of a QOS priority for torrents.
Some torrents I would prefer to seed more then others, I would love if I could somehow set:
"If someone wants this torrent devote XYZ % of the max upload traffic, otherwise share everything else equally"

Colin wrote:I run ktorrent on a box which I am usually away from, and hence I rarely if ever see the "file completed" dialog. I would like it very much if KT could send me an email when it finishes a downloading file.

I first saw this feature in the multi-protocol client MLdonkey. If you supply an email address in the configuration panel, it sends a mail which looks like this:

Code: Select all

mldonkey has completed the download of:

File: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Size: 733839360 bytes
Hash: urn:bt:AY[...]YF
File was downloaded in 14d 15h 14m 13s

Something similar was recently implemented in aMule in the form of event hooks which you can configure to call external scripts (cf, http://www.amule.org/wiki/index.php/Events. I created that page and contributed the shell script example).

Alas, I can't code C++ otherwise I would offer to write it myself. But I would be happy to test it if someone else does.

That's an interesting idea, we could add all sort of event hooks and allow scripts to be attached to it.

Hello,
my english isn't good, sorry for it

Ktorrent is the best Choice IMHO.
There are only 2 Things I miss.

The first is, I don't see me own Score.(thats Interessting for me, if I have good score,
I believe in fair sharing)

The second is, a list or Manager (maybe Plugin?) where
I can view the peers (IPs) which I have add to the Filter list (the session IP filter)
actually I can't imaginate how many peers I have kicked because
they are bad leechers (no upload,bad score)

greets and great respect for your work!

3967

"If someone wants this torrent devote XYZ % of the max upload traffic, otherwise share everything else equally"

I would love to be able to prioritize uploads and downloads of specific torrents.

This is (I think) a pretty modest suggestion:

I create .torrent files on a regular basis and nearly always use the same announce URL. It would be very useful if KT could remember the last five or so and display them in a drop-down menu under the input field.

Thanks for considering this and keep up the excellent work.

3967 wrote:Hello,
my english isn't good, sorry for it

Ktorrent is the best Choice IMHO.
There are only 2 Things I miss.

The first is, I don't see me own Score.(thats Interessting for me, if I have good score,
I believe in fair sharing)

You don't have a score, it's not necessary and it is impossible to calculate. It depends on your situation, there is no way for you to know the other peers' situation, so you cannot calculate the score the other peers would calculate for you.

The second is, a list or Manager (maybe Plugin?) where
I can view the peers (IPs) which I have add to the Filter list (the session IP filter)
actually I can't imaginate how many peers I have kicked because
they are bad leechers (no upload,bad score)

We'll see.

3967:

It seems to me that "scoring" can best be handled by trackers, not clients. If scoring is important to you, you should only connect to private trackers which maintain stats and calculate U/D ratios, and presumably have some way of penalizing users with poor ratios.

Users who leech are a burden on the system, but it is very difficult to force people to share. The ed2k network has an elaborate credit system which is supposed to counter leeching, but it has various drawbacks, not least of which is that it tends to penalize people with less common shares and reward those sharing popular files. See the following page for a discussion of this:

http://mldonkey.sourceforge.net/EMuleCreditSystem