JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 24.11.2009, 02:21
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
Default

java needs around 50% -75% more initial ram in linux than on windows.
the mem usage you see is
java+jd+heap
heap is only freed if not needed by jd and needed by os (means your os memory must be FULL in order that java will free unneeded memory), else heap will get freed very slowly.
its okay on linux that jd needs around 100-150mb on init.
you can change this alot by tweaking with java options and its garbage collector but that depends heavily on os, system, java version and so on.
my eclipse needs around 900 mb
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 24.11.2009, 10:33
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

That clearly excludes running jD on an older Linux PC with 128 MB RAM.

What are the minimum requirements for jD to run comfortably on a Linux box?

Last edited by remi; 24.11.2009 at 10:36.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 24.11.2009, 12:01
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
Default

128 is clearly not enough. 512m is a good start (because your os also wants some ram and your browser too and so on)
you can tweak settings a lot, but thats very depending on os, java, and so on
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #84  
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
  #85  
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
  #86  
Old 28.11.2009, 18:50
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
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
  #87  
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
  #88  
Old 29.11.2009, 14:35
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
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
  #89  
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
  #90  
Old 29.11.2009, 20:35
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
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
  #91  
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
  #92  
Old 30.11.2009, 14:14
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
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
  #93  
Old 05.12.2009, 19:14
Tyop Tyop is offline
Ultra Loader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Someone works on it?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06.12.2009, 08:41
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

@Tyop:
I don't think there is a known problem to work on.

The team is always looking for ways to save memory.

There is a peculiar bug in some security software that causes memory problems with JDownloader (and I am trying to find that program on my computer). With a fresh copy of an OS, JDownloader is very conservative in memory use.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06.12.2009, 18:20
Tyop Tyop is offline
Ultra Loader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 47
Default

I was asking about download history (and please, save it in separate datafile. Now JD hangs for 5 seconds saving database every time i move single package on list\enable\ disable download etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06.12.2009, 22:30
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyop View Post
I was asking about download history (and please, save it in separate datafile. Now JD hangs for 5 seconds saving database every time i move single package on list\enable\ disable download etc.).
sounds more like a broken database. you should not have an issue with that!
how big is your config folder?

downloadhistory is on todo list and im sure it will be in a different database
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07.12.2009, 05:35
Tyop Tyop is offline
Ultra Loader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
sounds more like a broken database. you should not have an issue with that!
how big is your config folder?
905K database.log
418 database.properties
7.2M database.script
4 version.cfg

(on a pretty slow comp with a pretty slow media but on a faster proc it behaved same)
Quote:
downloadhistory is on todo list and im sure it will be in a different database
Sorry, i thought that you will of course choose Bad Design Idea, like merging configuration of program with filedatabase into single file;) But still no one coded a single line for it, right?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07.12.2009, 13:35
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 63,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyop View Post
7.2M database.script
your database is broken unless you have several thousand files in your list.
if that is NOT the case i would finish my downloads and then clean the config folder to get rid of the broken database and setup fresh jd
a normal database is around 100kb and 2mb
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07.12.2009, 16:23
Tyop Tyop is offline
Ultra Loader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Hmm, dlc file is 2.3M, jdc 6.6M, so you're probably right, that database is quite old. But making new config is not possible - it will delete download history, thing that i try to avoid.
And that reminds me about other Bad Design Idea - make impossible to export and import [tested dlc and jdc, and they are hilarious] links without information that file status is 100% downloaded or not…
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08.12.2009, 11:37
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

The DLC container mechanism was not created for backing up status information of links.

That status information is in the config database. You can make backups of your database, but once it is corrupt this doesn't make sense any more.

If there are no repairing tools I'm afraid you'll not be able to repair it yourself, because the format isn't human readable. That's a big disadvantage of databases in general.
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 07:16.
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.