Rarred or Unrarred?

[stoi]

It doesn't matter what protocol you are using. If the group badly packed the release you wouldnt have to redownload the entire file. if it got corrupted on your harddrive you'd have to redownload the whole file again. i just find it safer to use rars. The only thing i hate about the scne rules for packing is the 0day shit. Zip a rar file? fuck thats so stupid.

if the release had been unpacked, tested and uploaded unrared there wouldn't have been a badly packed torrent on the tracker in the first place.

there would have been one unpacked repack version. one torrent less and a lot of saved bandwith.

your argument says rars make sense because rars might be uploaded corrupted which is kind of a contradiction. no rars on a tracker, no need for repacks on a tracker.

if you read the whole thread you'd see that rars are not needed for bittorrent because of the way the protocol handles files. chunks, checksums and verification are the keywords.

the only reason to tolerate them is faster pretimes and less work for the uploader.

it has nothing to do with errors whatsoever.

I give up. why do i even post in this forum, no one ever frigging listens

[jonepb]

every private tracker have something special about it

[SgtMajor]

every private tracker have something special about it

Kwality addition to the debate there jonepb, pure kwalitee.

[jonepb]

every private tracker have something special about it

Kwality addition to the debate there jonepb, pure kwalitee.

lolol ty m8.

[400]

if it's a torrent that i only want a file or two from. i prefer it to be unrarred. but if i want the whole torrent. i prefer it to be rarred. another downside of rar files is the occassional crc error i get.

[Polarbear]

if the release had been unpacked, tested and uploaded unrared there wouldn't have been a badly packed torrent on the tracker in the first place.

there would have been one unpacked repack version. one torrent less and a lot of saved bandwith.

your argument says rars make sense because rars might be uploaded corrupted which is kind of a contradiction. no rars on a tracker, no need for repacks on a tracker.

if you read the whole thread you'd see that rars are not needed for bittorrent because of the way the protocol handles files. chunks, checksums and verification are the keywords.

the only reason to tolerate them is faster pretimes and less work for the uploader.

it has nothing to do with errors whatsoever.

I give up. why do i even post in this forum, no one ever frigging listens

well stoi, i read your posts, but i tend to disagree with you on that subject which is no big deal. "i've seen it happen.." is just a weak argument when millions of bittorrent transfers happen flawless everyday and the protocol is as it is.

if you tell me a hash MD5 check can fail, then you'd have to explain to me how and why to convince me. you can't simply say you've seen a hashing algorithm not work.

nothing is a 100% and even a 4096 bit encryption can be hacked.

the question is does this justify the disadvantages of rars. in my opinion it doesn't.

[lukee]

It doesn't matter what protocol you are using. If the group badly packed the release you wouldnt have to redownload the entire file. if it got corrupted on your harddrive you'd have to redownload the whole file again. i just find it safer to use rars. The only thing i hate about the scne rules for packing is the 0day shit. Zip a rar file? fuck thats so stupid.

if the release had been unpacked, tested and uploaded unrared there wouldn't have been a badly packed torrent on the tracker in the first place.

there would have been one unpacked repack version. one torrent less and a lot of saved bandwith.

your argument says rars make sense because rars might be uploaded corrupted which is kind of a contradiction. no rars on a tracker, no need for repacks on a tracker.

if you read the whole thread you'd see that rars are not needed for bittorrent because of the way the protocol handles files. chunks, checksums and verification are the keywords.

the only reason to tolerate them is faster pretimes and less work for the uploader.

it has nothing to do with errors whatsoever.

i see what your getting to and im not trying to start a flame war

I think its perfectly fine to upload a release that has 1 or 2 corrupted rars. you download the non corrupted ones and wait for the rarfix instead of waiting until the uploader gets the rarfix, extracts the file etc... If the uploader fucks up the unrarred file and hashes it and posts it..then that would waste bandwidth.

[stoi]

well imo there are no disadvantages to rars lol

[JROQuinn]

[Ali-g]

if the release had been unpacked, tested and uploaded unrared there wouldn't have been a badly packed torrent on the tracker in the first place.

there would have been one unpacked repack version. one torrent less and a lot of saved bandwith.

your argument says rars make sense because rars might be uploaded corrupted which is kind of a contradiction. no rars on a tracker, no need for repacks on a tracker.

if you read the whole thread you'd see that rars are not needed for bittorrent because of the way the protocol handles files. chunks, checksums and verification are the keywords.

the only reason to tolerate them is faster pretimes and less work for the uploader.

it has nothing to do with errors whatsoever.

I give up. why do i even post in this forum, no one ever frigging listens

I listen : P
PolarBear I seem to disagree with u in everything. Sorry dude but I cant tell u how completely wrong u are.
The main function of rars (great resource in big files) is so if u have a corrupted file, u DL only the file that is corrupted(the rar piece), u dont have to DL the whole thing again.