BitComet partially redownloads finished tasks

[landonthegr8]

Hey everyone, here's my problem. I hope this is something someone will know more about. I have been using BC for years and until recently I haven't had any issues. My problem is that while trying to seed my completed tasks, BC randomly picks 1 or a few to (for some reason) decide that they are not, in fact, completed. Thus, BC begins to download the "remaining" part of the torrent. Problem is, I know they WERE completed! I have Manual Hash Checked the files, and sure enough, it says the files are incomplete. Here's the kicker: when I got to my media player, some files are now duplicated. BUT WITH SOME OTHER FILES actually being played! So it is downloading what "it" thinks is my missing files, but they are not. I am using Windows 7 Ult. and BitComet 1.21. I have scanned for malware, spyware, and viruses. Notta, except for some cookies that are then deleted. I don't get it! :blink: :unsure: :angry:

[greywizard]

What do the tasks contain?

Is it video files or software?

It may be possible that your security software sees any of the files as malware and deletes them thus making BitComet download again the missing files.

To what percentages does it usually jump back?

...when I got to my media player, some files are now duplicated. BUT WITH SOME OTHER FILES actually being played!

I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Why and how do you check in your media player that your files are duplicated? Can't you do that in Explorer?

What do you mean by duplicated? Do they have different names and equal size or what? (Because files with the exact same name can't exist in the same folder.)

You'll have to dive into more detailed study of the files for the tasks in question.

1. In a folder for any of these tasks does there appear any file with the .bc! again?

2. Is it any of the old (already finished in the past) files that gets that extension added or is it a new file that gets created?

3. If it's a new .bc! file that gets created (there shouldn't be any .bc! files inside a finished task's folder), is its older counterpart still present in the folder or it's missing (i.e. deleted by some security software or whatever)? If yes, can you open it?

4. If both the old and the new files are present, which are the sizes of both files (equal or different)?

What do you mean by "some other files being played"?

I've never seen this kind of behavior with v.1.21 so far. You need to try and determine what changes occur in the folder of a task that suffers the behavior you described. Usually this would happen if BitComet detects some file(s) missing from the folder or perhaps if there are file system errors which make the file size to be reported wrong or corrupt the files themselves.

I'm not sure what causes this in your case though, at least not yet.

[landonthegr8]

Okay, what I meant by "some other files being played" is this: When the song in question is played, it isn't actually the song I chose to play. It turns out to be some other random band. And the other answer is "no" to: "In a folder for any of these tasks does there appear any file with the .bc! again?" There isn't. But the other answer is "yes" to: "3. If it's a new .bc! file that gets created (there shouldn't be any .bc! files inside a finished task's folder), is its older counterpart still present in the folder or it's missing (i.e. deleted by some security software or whatever)? If yes, can you open it?" The original files are still there. As for the sizes of the files, I guess I should be more accurate. In some cases, BC does simply redownload the song(s) again. But at times, it substitutes song(s) with other song(s)altogether. Though they are titled as the song(s) I was intending to play. Look, in the end, BC keeps downloading these files and I have looked... My Anti-Virus etc doesn't remove any of these files. They are always present. I guess it just doesn't matter to BC. This is strange.

[greywizard]

Well, I don't know if it doesn't matter to your client but it surely doesn't seem to matter to you.

I went to the trouble of writing a heck of a long post for you. Do you have any idea why?

Because I couldn't make heads or tails out of yours, in the first place. You don't use any paragraphs and you don't follow a logical thread in what you're saying. The info just comes out randomly mixed just like in a flood.

Both of your posts are very confusing and the formatting of the text certainly isn't helping.

It's a total lack of courtesy for anybody who must read your posts to write in this way, since no one feels the urge of the sentiment that they're deciphering old Sumerian clay tablets.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean to upset you or make you feel bad (not as near as trying to read your posts made me ;) ), but you need to be told this.

I've taken the time to ask you about 13 different questions.

Have you bothered to wonder why? Or do you think this is what we do for fun?

However, you surely didn't bother to answer even half of them.

It's funny though that you found the time to copy some of my questions in your post but didn't find the time to even answer all of the copied ones.

That tells me that you don't really want/need to know what happened; whether this is a system error, a misunderstanding on your part or a bug of BitComet.

So, I can only assume that you're either very confused about computers in general and lacking the basic understanding of file systems and OS GUI shells (in which case we could cut you some slack, provided you tried to write better and answer what you're asked) or that you're too lazy to be bothered to make a sensible, clear post about your issue.

That you'll have to decide for yourself and let us know, so that we may know how to deal with you further. ;)

Because I sure can't help someone who doesn't want to help himself, if that's your case.

[landonthegr8]

Well I have to start by saying that you are right. Looking back at my posts, I see they were a bit garbled. :blink: That said, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my posts.

I am usually very busy with my children and/or work, so I sometimes try to quickly respond to email, IM messages, etc. and then go about my business. So yes, I probably would have taken more time if I had realized how important it was to you. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I truthfully didn't even expect a response, much less the efficient and timely posts you had provided.

As for my computer knowledge... Hmm. I know enough to usually be a help to my friends. Though you should know that your assumption is mostly correct. I know nothing of GUI's and so forth. Sorry, but I am self taught on here and have never discovered a need to learn this stuff. I am interested, but I just don't have a lot of time.

My post was just to report a problem I have. If it's something with my pc, then I will deal with it later. Until then, if this problem bothers me too badly, maybe I will just uninstall BC and use something else. I didn't have this problem using Limewire Pro.

One more thing.. The clay tablet remark was funny! :lol: Made me laugh anyways.

[greywizard]

Well, maybe I was too "acronymic". GUI = Graphical User Interface. I.e. in Widows it is the graphical interface you use, namely Windows Explorer.

The main issue here, is that from your posts I can't understand what has happened on a file system level (no one can).

Say you download a task containing 4 files {A.mp3, B.mp3, C.mp3, D.mp3}. (You can easily see the files contained in the task into the Files tab of BitComet.)

Should it go haywire, as you say some did, and start re-downloading some of the files the first thing I would check would be the Files tab. In there you can see the percentage for each file, so you can easily spot those who are being re-downloaded.

Let's say that A.mp3 and D.mp3 are being re-downloaded.

You click on the "OpenDir" button on the toolbar so that BitComet opens the folder for that task and you can examine the actual files. Here is where you should provided detailed info.

1. Is there still an A.mp3 and a D.mp3 in the folder or just A.mp3.bc! and d.mp3.bc!?
   
2. If they are still there then, can you also see in there A.mp3.bc! and D.mp3.bc! or not?
   
3. If all 4 are there, can you still open A.mp3 and D.mp3 or not?
   
4. If not, what is the file size for A.mp3 and D.mp3?
   

These are just a few of the questions from my previous post which need an answer for us to even begin understanding what's happened to you.

The example you keep bringing, about trying to play the files in a media player is very irrelevant since you didn't mention neither the player nor the method by which you tried to play it.

E.g. in Winamp if you add an entire folder (enqueue it) to the play-list it will automatically skip the files that are not existent, corrupted, or have unknown codecs and you can easily get what you were describing: hearing other tunes instead.

OTOH, if you double-click a file it might try to open the file directly but depending on your player's settings it can load it into an empty play-list in which case you may see if it plays or it's corrupted or not.

But if your player's settings are to enqueue files upon double-click then you will wind up in the same situation as above; in case you're trying to play a 0kB size file, a corrupted one, or a type unrecognized to your player it will still jump to the next valid one in the play-list. Hence the same result you described.

That's why mentioning your player behavior is very irrelevant unless given much more specific details.

You need to focus on the files, as they appear in Explorer, examine them and draw very solid conclusions based on that as I've explained you above and in my first post. Only after that you'll be able to actually verify how well your files play.

BitComet doesn't restart downloads by itself; it has to detect some change in file integrity or availability first. This may very well be a sign of impending software or hardware failure.

But I don't want to draw any further conclusions based on mere assumptions.