JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 20.06.2009, 20:57
melicaster
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Memory Usage

I recenly using jDownloader for a long time... I opened my computer 24/7 and using jDownloader...

I accidentally focus on jDownloader memory usage. The memory usage of jDownloader keep increasing and never flush out. Should developer see about this?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20.06.2009, 21:55
jimpanse's Avatar
jimpanse jimpanse is offline
JD VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 336
Default

There already are some threads that refer to your topic:

http://board.jdownloader.org/showthread.php?t=4117

Developers know about it and will try to fix it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21.06.2009, 11:42
melicaster
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpanse View Post
There already are some threads that refer to your topic:

http://board.jdownloader.org/showthread.php?t=4117

Developers know about it and will try to fix it.
No... The thread you refering is about CPU usage, not memory usage. Beside, I didn't experiencing any CPU usage problem.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22.06.2009, 00:14
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

what os? what java? how many chunks and downloads?
how many ram?
java cannot free its used heap!
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23.06.2009, 04:05
melicaster
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
what os? what java? how many chunks and downloads?
how many ram?
java cannot free its used heap!
Windows Vista Ultimate with SP2 (x64)
Java Standard Edition with Update 13
One Chunk, 2 Downloads
4GB of system memory
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24.06.2009, 00:56
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

java 32 or 64bit

it seems that every 64bit windows has some problems with java, because users that have mem problems always have 64bit os too

try to change between 32 and 64bit java (deinstall the one and install the other) and see if it helps
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28.11.2009, 09:00
drbits's Avatar
drbits drbits is offline
JD English Support (inactive)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Physically in Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 4,437
Default

Right now, my Private Bytes for JD is over 550MB in Process Explorer. I have seen it at 630MB.

I have reported having memory problems before (various versions of JD Pinky, Brain, Nightlies). I have now uninstalled all of my antivirus and firewall software (I have a good in-coming firewall in the DSL router). I have spybot, but the "real-time" parts are not functional and the innoculation is removed.
I have also removed as much of the Microsoft SDK as I can, cigwin, and an assortment of other software. I have cleaned the registry and the Winsock stack.

The paging file is not thrashing (4-5 real paging file reads/second), so it seem like it is not the Java heap. I can try using HeapWalk, memory monitor, and Object Manager monitor to see where the memory is going. I am not sure if this is worthwhile. Can you suggest anything?

I think I may have to reinstall the OS and add things back one at a time. I will keep XP Home OEM SP3 (NT version 5.1) instead of changing to Vista (NT version 6) or NT version 7.

JD version -Nightly- 0.9.876 on Java 16u17 (32 bit).
Max Dls. usually set to 6, because I tend to have connections waiting for slots.
Maximum 1 connection per DL.
Windows XP SP3 with all applicable updates, including IE8 and MS Office 2007.
I use JD from FireFox 3.5.5.
My computer is a 2002 HP Pentium 4 (2 GHz) with 1 GB of memory.
My video card is an ATI Radion 8500 with TV functionality turned off.
Also running uTorrent and Perfectdisk (all concurrent). uTorrent is throttled to 20KB/s download speed. uTorrent and Perfectdisk run at a lower priority than JD.

JD is currently running with no active connections (I am about to restart it to get the log turned on). There appears to be a very slow increase in Private bytes (100K/hour), even though I have no connections.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28.11.2009, 09:58
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

I'm running XP SP3 with a very small memory and jD currently uses around 30 MB/ Max.Con. = 2 and 2 simultaneous downloads.
Azureus and my browser currently use 80 and 90 MB respectively, but they're doing a lot more.
I use Sygate Personal Firewall and I've never had any complaints about it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28.11.2009, 18:50
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbits View Post
JD is currently running with no active connections (I am about to restart it to get the log turned on). There appears to be a very slow increase in Private bytes (100K/hour), even though I have no connections.
logentries do also need memoryso even when jd is doing NOTHING it generates debug messages in logfile (eg scheduler, bytebuffer controller and such things). that could explain the SLOW increase in memory usage.

currently there are no known memleaks in jd, all new reports were caused by firewall/antivirus/win7 64bit.

+ we are always improving jd memory/cpu usage

@remi: thats a really good value my jd needs around 150mb under linux
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29.11.2009, 11:49
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Yes, I'm amazed by the amount of memory some people need to run jD.

I think the small memory of my PC forces the Java garbage collector to do its work. At the moment my jD is using 15 MB with one download.

I suppose the more memory you buy, the more Java/Windoze will use.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29.11.2009, 14:35
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remi View Post
I suppose the more memory you buy, the more Java/Windoze will use.
thats correct behaviour. i dont need an os that only use 10% of my memory. memory should always be used at 90-100%. (apps, caches, buffers and so on)
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29.11.2009, 20:18
drbits's Avatar
drbits drbits is offline
JD English Support (inactive)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Physically in Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 4,437
Default

Is the log in memory, not a file with a scroll window? In my last message in this thread, logging was NONE in Settings->Basic.

Is the Link List in memory, not in the database and read as needed? If the Link List is in memory, that can explain most of my memory problems.

Java should use more memory on computers with more memory, but not 2/3 of memory. I see log entries about memory errors if I change the -XMx option to -Xmx384m, but -Xmx468m seems to work fine.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29.11.2009, 20:35
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbits View Post
Is the Link List in memory, not in the database and read as needed? If the Link List is in memory, that can explain most of my memory problems.
Edit by Jiaz: log is in memory, not on disk! if you dont need log, disable it

Java should use more memory on computers with more memory, but not 2/3 of memory. I see log entries about memory errors if I change the -XMx option to -Xmx384m, but -Xmx468m seems to work fine.
Edit by Jiaz: jd cannot use more than 512mb heap by default. more = memleak in windows/java/firewall/virusscanner. .Xmx384 works fine here and so do 200
see comments
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 30.11.2009, 10:44
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbits View Post
Is the Link List in memory, not in the database and read as needed? If the Link List is in memory, that can explain most of my memory problems.
I think it's kept in memory, but it doesn't make much sense to have too many (thousands) links in your queue, because the corresponding files can go off-line. You can of course check them again but that means more manual work.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 30.11.2009, 14:14
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 65,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remi View Post
I think it's kept in memory, but it doesn't make much sense to have too many (thousands) links in your queue, because the corresponding files can go off-line. You can of course check them again but that means more manual work.
once the downloadhistory is done, this is no problem because the links will be saved in database and only move to memory when accessed.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11.02.2010, 09:48
kozimus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

hello. i had same leakage issue ,running win7 32bit. after about 12 hours i was running out of memory (bsod) .my problem was COMODO firewall since i uninstall it my leak is gone! running over 5 hours,several downloads and no increase in memory usage.

i also have a question, why after a close JD javaw.exe is still running?

Last edited by kozimus; 11.02.2010 at 10:13.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12.02.2010, 16:47
hoblingr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Problem fixed!!!

Hi all,

The memory problem of JDownloader + Win7 + Nod32 or other AV / Firewall is fixed if you install this patch:

support.microsoft.com/kb/979223

It was a windows memory leak.

I tested it and the problem is removed!!!

Enjoy,

Stephane
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13.02.2010, 05:08
drbits's Avatar
drbits drbits is offline
JD English Support (inactive)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Physically in Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 4,437
Default

Thank you Hoblingr. I am spreading the word.

Last edited by drbits; 13.02.2010 at 05:35.
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 02:31.
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 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.