#81
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
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 11:36. |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Someone works on it?
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
@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. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
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.).
|
#96
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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:
|
#98
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
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… |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|