Thread: [Developer Feedback required] Problem with large 2-5GB files
View Single Post
  #1  
Old 09.02.2014, 08:07
phil_ga
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Problem with large 2-5GB files

I have two premium accounts with UL and RG. They have worked fine for many years. I can typically get 50GB files overnight using JD. All good.

Lately I have moved to large files that are 2 to 5 GB each file (rather than 100-500 MB, which was my average). Most are rar files, some are single mkv movies. Now I find that JD chokes on all the large files - by this I mean it downloads anything from 20-99.5% of these then stops and declares either file not found, or error. Worse, many stop with no message at all. It moves to the next file, same thing, then the next. It basically downloads many many GB, but only rarely completes. Also most of the time nothing resumes, whether manually or not. If I reset the files (losing whats done so far) the problem is the same. Its the same problem with both filehosts, so I find it hard to think its a specific problem of the filehost sites. If I chuck in a few smaller files, they zip right on down...

I have not changed these settings for over 2 years:
-Max Chunks on 4
-Max DL per hoster on 4
-Max simultaneous DLs on 8.

I have used JD for several years and am not new to this.
-latest version
-not blocked by avast
-my hosting services both support resume, which normally works fine. Just not with these larger files..
-premium accounts with each host
-same problem for several days - I checked the filehosters are both working and each time they are fine..

My only idea to try next is to reduce the max chunks - a totally random guess on my part.
I should note that I am also running Vuze Bittorrent constantly. Up to 15 files at a time (very few seeders!), but my JD problem is the same if I shut Vuze off for 6 hours, so I assume there are no specific network clashes there?

I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this issue and what I might try next? Thanks in advance..

Last edited by phil_ga; 10.02.2014 at 01:57.
Reply With Quote