Hi!
Really great work you have done!

I was wondering, when my disk was noisy for a couple of minutes when XoloX put together the parts of a huge file downloaded from different hosts (~800Mb), wheather (if you have some spare time ;-) instead of copying it into one file, you might find a way to update the file table telling it, that you now have one large file which is stored in fragments on the disk instead of a huge number of smaller files stored in seperate files.
This would save time, do good to my hard disk and save system resources. The next time I would defragment my disk, all would be put together properly. Of course, this would require to find out how to access the file table, but this should be possible, since defragmentation programs are able to do this, too.

Best regards,

Björn

And who's going to test this feature that writes directly to your FAT tables? Not me!!!

Plus it would have to work on FAT16, FAT32, and NTFS (NT4 and Win2k versions are even different). No way!

Just get a 7200RPM hard drive. ( :

- Brent

I would test it... I have a friend with several HDDs lying around that I could borrow.

I think one of the problems with writing directly to the FAT is that it's very low level, and the programming language they are using might not natively provide acces to those kinds of functions.

Another potential problem is that the file segments overlap... and since I don't know much about FAT manipulation, I don't know how difficult it would be to update it correctly minus the error checking amount.

Hi,

I just read a suggestion (10-22-2001 "Segmet download improvement") saying that you ought to reservere disk-space as huge as the complete file you are downloading by creating one huge empty file and then have different threads write to it at the place they are downloading.
That would save a lot of time. btw, I do have a fast disk but it still takes time if it gets full... :-)

It would solve the problem I indicated and it would not require to have different versions for different formats like FAT, NTFS etc.

Björn

That file has it's good side and it's not so good side.

The good side you've mentioned. The not so good side is that you wouldn't be able to, say, start a dozen downloads totalling three times your current disk space with the knowledge that some will finish faster and give you time to move them to a seperate disk.

As a counter-point to that argument, seperate download folders could be made avaliable for each file "type" (audo, video, program, etc) so that all your ISO downloads are put on your 80 gig HDD while all of your e-book downloads are stored on your old 20 gig.

For this to occur a user would either 1) Have the ability to specify the file "type" for each added extension and be able to create their own custom "types", or 2) have all new extensions be automatically put in a type like "user added types"