JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10.10.2010, 21:43
Cyber
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default removal of files on selecting "remove from list"

jdownloader version: 0.9.579
Java version: sun-java6 (6-20-0-lenny1)
OS: debian lenny
no FW / AV Software

following situation:
I have a list of 1 file with 8 mirrors.
one mirror starts the download, while the download runs I mark all other mirrors and select "remove -> from list" (NOT "from list and disc"!)

after clicking I can see the .part-file disappearing in download-directory. the download is still running.
with lsof I can see the file listed to the according PID, but with "deleted" afterwards. after the download is finished the file is deleted complete.

I hope this is enough, should be simply reproduceable.

best regards

Last edited by Cyber; 10.10.2010 at 21:59.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11.10.2010, 05:01
drbits's Avatar
drbits drbits is offline
JD English Support (inactive)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Physically in Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 4,434
Default

Please check whether this still occurs in the Nightly test release.

Instead of using "Remove - from list", please just disable the mirrors until the file has been downloaded and checked. This will save you other headaches.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26.10.2010, 11:28
Cyber
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

actually I did not have the possibility to test this with the nightly build, but I just took a look with the "normal" branc, full updated, it still had the issue.
but I think this is normal as you told me I have to try with a nightly build ...

btw.: the reason why I delete them out of the list: jdownloader consums a lot more system ressources if the list is quite big (> 50 items) - as my system is very small I try to reduce the list as soon as possible ...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27.10.2010, 04:47
drbits's Avatar
drbits drbits is offline
JD English Support (inactive)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Physically in Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 4,434
Default

I understand and agree with your concerns. I currently have trouble keeping track of what I have downloaded and where it is. I have thousands of links I am interested in downloading stored in DLCs, so they do not have to be in memory.

JD stores the entire database in memory and in an inefficient way. This is expected to change in the future.

One feature request is to store completed and disabled links separately from links that are downloading or waiting to download. This will allow users to keep all completed links and packages around.

Another feature request is to add tags to packages, so they are easier to find.
__________________

I understand the limitations of small systems. I use a 9 year old computer (see note 1).

But, for packages that contains only one archive, the extra links for disabled mirrors are only a small increase.

I currently have almost 3000 links and JD is running with less than 175MiB. If I run JD with no links, it takes around 90MIB. This is less than 32KiB per link (this is more than it should take, but extensive database work is planned for the future).

However, if you have 40 links (two large archives) plus 80 mirrors (two mirrors each), that is only 120 links total. The total for the links is less than 4 MiB of memory. Even on a computer with only 256 MiB of memory this is not a hardship unless you are overloading the system in some other way.

As for CPU time, extra links do not take extra download time if the JD window is minimized. It is the GUI and database that slow down with extra links.
_____________________

This assumes you are using low impact security software (as I recommend in the Self Help Index). If you are using an integrated security package (such as KIS or ESET), up to 1/3 of your CPU time can be expended by the security package. A minimum security configuration for Windows (Microsoft Security Essentials with no firewall) is not noticeable.
________________________

Overall, the nightly test build is around twice as fast as the Stable (normal) branch. This represents the kind of improvement we can expect in the next release.

The nightly build is not intended for daily use, but for testing. I break that rule, but it is with the knowledge of the support staff and I understand that I am risking a lot by doing this. So far, the worst that has happened is that my links were read wrong from the library and all were disabled (I enabled them and everything was fine). Some features disappear occasionally and the UI changes can be surprising.

drbits

Note 1:
I used to write programs for computers with 256KB of memory and 20MB of disk space. I used to comb through the code looking for things to shrink. The documents we were dealing with were often larger than all of the memory on the computer and the program would not all fit in memory either. I had to manually control which parts of the documents were in memory and which parts of the program were in memory.

On another project, the computer was just fast enough to read its input and copy it to memory. We looked at each low level instruction and the amount of time each instruction took. We got the loop down to 8 instructions.

Note 2:
MiB = 2 ^ 20 this is a relatively new convention. MB can mean the same as MiB or it can mean 1 000 000. Disk drives are measured in GB or TB (10^9 or 10^12), which is smaller than the expected GiB 2^30 or TiB 2^40. (a 1 TB drive holds around 930 GiB, about 10% less that 1 TiB). It is easiest to see the difference with KB (1000) versus KiB (1024). There is also a convention that Kb is 1024 bits or 128 bytes.

Note 3:
For testing purposes, I have had over 10 000 packages and 70 000 links in JDownloader at one time. JDownloader worked fine, but the GUI was much too slow. I never recommend more than 1000 packages and 10 000 links at one time (the program has an acceptable response time at that level, provided you have not overloaded the computer with other programs).

Last edited by drbits; 27.10.2010 at 05:17.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01.11.2010, 16:25
Cyber
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

drbits thanks for the tip regarding minimizing jdownloader - my problem is solved, jdownloader only eats CPU if it is not minimized. as soon as it is minimized it just downloads ... :D
memory usage is not as important as cpu usage for me. my system is equipped with enough memory, but VIA-cpus are soooo slow ...

>>>cyber
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:54.
Provided By AppWork GmbH | Privacy | Imprint
Parts of the Design are used from Kirsch designed by Andrew & Austin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.