Torrent Queuing: allow uploads to have higher priority over downloads #4953

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-21 17:35:21 -05:00 by deekerman · 2 comments

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 17:35:21 -05:00

Owner

Originally created by @ChristopherZhong on GitHub (Dec 10, 2016).

Current, my settings for the max active * are as follows:

max active downloads: 1
max active uploads: 1
max active torrents: 1

I only want 1 torrent to be active at any time. So, if there are multiple torrents (some queued for downloads, some queued for seeding), the downloads will always take priority over seeding. I would like to have the option to specify the opposite priority (seeding over downloads).

Because I also have another option (share ratio limit) to remove torrents that meet a ratio, I would like to have this behavior when there are multiple torrents queued for downloading.

Select the highest priority torrent
Download that torrent
Seed that torrent until the conditions for removal are met
Repeat step (1)

Originally created by @ChristopherZhong on GitHub (Dec 10, 2016). Current, my settings for the max active * are as follows: - max active downloads: 1 - max active uploads: 1 - max active torrents: 1 I only want 1 torrent to be active at any time. So, if there are multiple torrents (some queued for downloads, some queued for seeding), the downloads will always take priority over seeding. I would like to have the option to specify the opposite priority (seeding over downloads). Because I also have another option (share ratio limit) to remove torrents that meet a ratio, I would like to have this behavior when there are multiple torrents queued for downloading. 1. Select the highest priority torrent 2. Download that torrent 3. Seed that torrent until the conditions for removal are met 4. Repeat step (1)

deekerman added the

Feature request

label

2026-02-21 17:35:21 -05:00

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 17:35:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018):

Maybe duplicate of #566 not sure if it's possible with that.

@thalieht commented on GitHub (Sep 20, 2018): Maybe duplicate of #566 not sure if it's possible with that.

deekerman commented

2026-02-21 17:35:24 -05:00

Author

Owner

@xavier2k6 commented on GitHub (May 23, 2025):

ANNOUNCEMENT!

For anybody coming across this "Feature Request" & would like/love to see a potential implementation in the future!
Here are some options available to you:

Please select/click the 👍 &/or ❤ reactions in the original/opening post of this ticket.
Please feel free (If you have the "skillset") to create a "Pull Request" implementing what's being requested in this ticket.
(new/existing contributors/developers are always welcome)

DO:

Provide constructive feedback.
Display how other projects implemented same/similar etc.

DO NOT:

Add a "Bump", "me too", "2nd/3rd" etc. or "criticizing" comment(s).
(These will be disregarded/hidden as "spam/abuse/off-topic" etc. as they don't provide anything constructive.)

@xavier2k6 commented on GitHub (May 23, 2025): ## ANNOUNCEMENT! For anybody coming across this **_"Feature Request"_** & would like/love to see a potential implementation in the future! **Here are some options available to you:** 1. Please select/click the 👍 **&/or** ❤ `reactions` in the original/opening post of this ticket. 2. Please feel free _(If you have the "skillset")_ to create a **_"Pull Request"_** implementing what's being requested in this ticket. **_(new/existing contributors/developers are always welcome)_** ____ **DO:** * Provide constructive feedback. * Display how other projects implemented same/similar etc. **DO NOT:** * Add a "Bump", "me too", "2nd/3rd" etc. or "criticizing" comment(s). **(These will be disregarded/hidden as "spam/abuse/off-topic" etc. as they don't provide anything constructive.)**