Disable OptimizeAlignment

[stalkerok]

This will allow to create torrent files with a sequential file structure (1. 2. 3. rather than 3. 1. 2.). This is the default behavior in lt2.0.

[Chocobo1]

This will allow to create torrent files with a sequential file structure (1. 2. 3. rather than 3. 1. 2.).

You can just untick the "Optimize alignment" checkbox in torrent creator. Also this option is intended to be on by default.

[stalkerok]

The problem is that users create torrent files with default settings, and then complain that qBittorrent does not respect the file order. They don't know what this feature does and prefer sequential file order (there was a discussion on one tracker). Is there any reason why this should be enabled by default?

[Chocobo1]

Is there any reason why this should be enabled by default?

https://github.com/arvidn/libtorrent/blob/v1.2.19/include/libtorrent/create_torrent.hpp#L107-L110

Also, from https://www.libtorrent.org/upgrade_to_2.0-ref.html#create-torrent-changes :

All v2 torrents have pieces aligned to files, so the optimize_alignment flag is no longer relevant (as it's effectively always on).

[stalkerok]

I've read this before, but I don't understand why this behavior is necessarily the default? This change only affects lt1.2, which does not support v2. When creating a v1 torrent in lt2.0, the files are in sequential order.

[Chocobo1]

I've read this before, but I don't understand why this behavior is necessarily the default?

The points are "optimized disk-I/O" and "minimize the number of bytes of pad-files".

When creating a v1 torrent in lt2.0, the files are in sequential order.

This might be a bug in libtorrent.

This change only affects lt1.2, which does not support v2.

Yes but IMO it is better that the current default behavior is consistent with the new format. When v2 format become widespread (if that day ever comes), users will have to learn/face it eventually.

IIRC that option has been on for a long time. And do you really think we should change it now? Why not let users learn that checkbox existence?

[stalkerok]

And do you really think we should change it now?

Yes.

Why not let users learn that checkbox existence?

This will not happen. The option has been enabled for a long time and users still do not know what is gained by disabling this checkbox.

Yes but IMO it is better that the current default behavior is consistent with the new format. When v2 format become widespread (if that day ever comes), users will have to learn/face it eventually.

It's going to take a very long time if v2 really ever becomes popular. I'm relying on current discussions.

[Chocobo1]

Why not let users learn that checkbox existence?

This will not happen. The option has been enabled for a long time and users still do not know what is gained by disabling this checkbox.

We have related changes in 2018, it is really nothing new to the public: #8742

Maybe lack of auxiliary information? We can improve it such as adding description in tool tip.

And do you really think we should change it now?

Yes.

OK. I don't really support this change but nor do I block it. You'll need other members to support it.

[stalkerok]

Maybe lack of auxiliary information? We can improve it such as adding description in tool tip.

I don't think it's going to help. Users will only know about it when they get burned by it.

BTW, I found a good comment #5652 (comment)

[stalkerok]

Does anyone on the members support this?

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been 60 days with no activity. This PR will be automatically closed within 7 days if there is no further activity.

[stalkerok]

@glassez @xavier2k6 @thalieht @sledgehammer999 @Piccirello
Is this of interest to anyone?

[xavier2k6]

I have no strong opinion.