JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17.08.2010, 23:13
DC_JackBlind
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default JDownloader [Speed] Issues

I apologize in advance if this is a question/problem often brought up but I couldn't find any previous threads addressing this issue so I hope someone can help me anyway.
The issue is simply that whilst JD is downloading files from various filehosters (rapidshare, youtube you name it...) it will accellerate from 0-440 to 470kb/s as soon as i start d-loading. It then plateaus there for approx. 2-5 seconds and then drops to 50 to 80 kb/s. I wouldn't find this unusual if the file continued to download during the 2-5 second "plateau phase" but it stops (no transfer whatsoever) and then only resumes after dropping all the way down to a 10th of the speed which seems... well akward. It then after 1-2 seconds jumps up again and the process repeats and repeats. This has been a problem for a few weeks now and I haven't found the reason for it yet.

JD is version 0.9.580
MacOSX 10.5.8 (Leopard)

This is what I've tried so far:

Firewall disabled
Clamxav Folder Sentry disabled
Sophos Antivirus disabled

I've also tried adjusting the bottom right speed "box" in the downloads window to 2000kb/s and it suddenly started giving me speeds up to 1,8 Mb/s but the problem is that it plateaus as well and no filetransfers happen during that time!

I used to be able to download easily at 1000-1500kb/s speeds a few weeks ago. I couldn't find the answer anywhere and kept waiting for an update that would fix the issue but looking back its more likely the problem is due to some settings I've changed

Hopefully someone knows how to deal with this or has any suggestions as to what I should try!

Blind
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18.08.2010, 00:14
Think3r's Avatar
Think3r Think3r is offline
Community Manager & Admin (inaktiv)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,743
Default

Please read the General Bugreport Rules and the Self Help Index.
Greetz
__________________
Bitte die Regeln lesen! | Please read the forum rules!

REGELN: Bugreports | RULES: Bugreports


Erste Schritte & Tutorials | Self Help Index | Read Me | JD 2 Beta - FAQ

Support Chat

Keep smiling, it's simple!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21.08.2010, 20:48
Blindraid3r
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default I have the same issue!

I've used Safari to download files and recorded ~1/2 the time it took with jdownloader (no multiple downloads).
I then tried everything Dcjackblind did and it's not having any effect on the download speed/pattern :(
I will upload a screenshot asap

Blind
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22.08.2010, 13:07
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Did you read the sticky threads Think3r referred to?

Having speed issues ? read this!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23.08.2010, 14:46
Blindraid3r
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Yes, I have!

But as i tried to explain... Safari donwloads these files 2 sometimes 3 times faster and I was wondering if someone could enlighten me why this is the case! As I use a Mac as well i don't have Java.exe and don't see why my turned off firewall and virus scanner(s) would stop jd but not safari from d-loading

Thanks in advance to anyone with suggestions...

Blind
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23.08.2010, 15:54
Think3r's Avatar
Think3r Think3r is offline
Community Manager & Admin (inaktiv)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,743
Default

You know that browsers usually calculate the speed wrong? Did you test yourself whether the download takes the same amount of time?
Greetz
__________________
Bitte die Regeln lesen! | Please read the forum rules!

REGELN: Bugreports | RULES: Bugreports


Erste Schritte & Tutorials | Self Help Index | Read Me | JD 2 Beta - FAQ

Support Chat

Keep smiling, it's simple!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26.08.2010, 15:50
Josh
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm also having this problem, using Mac OS X 10.6.4, JD 0.9.580 and have neither firewall or anti virus.

At the moment the problem only seems to affect downloads from Rapidshare, where as in the browser this problem doesn't exist.

I will be sure to check out the links in the mean time.

Last edited by Josh; 26.08.2010 at 16:00.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27.08.2010, 13:32
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Speed issue Solved? Did you find the cause?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27.08.2010, 16:29
Josh
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Unfortunately, the problem still persists, but to be fair I haven't tried much to fix it at the moment.

Can't see it being a firewall/anti-v issue as I have neither active.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 28.08.2010, 11:15
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Disabling a firewall and virus software might not be sufficient. Removing them and rebooting your computer makes sure they aren't the cause.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 28.08.2010, 12:07
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 66,134
Default

Josh, please visit supportchat and we will do a teamviewer live session. im sure we will find the source of this and be able to fix it.
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 28.08.2010, 12:54
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

It can be a firewall or antivirus issue if you do not have one.

The lack of a firewall allows mean people to use up your bandwidth.

The lack of an antivirus allows mean people to do nasty things to your computer. It does not matter what OS you are using.

Always use at least a firewall that protects your computer from incomming data (it is probably in your router).

Always use an antivirus that examines each file before it is executed. Unfortunately, most do a lot more. Do not allow an antivirus to scan data while it is being downloaded.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28.08.2010, 13:15
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The following file types are potentially hazardous for the Windoze platform. They can do no harm to Mac nor Linux platforms.

.exe
.pif
.com
.vbs
.bat, .cmd
.doc, .xls, .ppt
.rtf (hiding for a .doc file)

(source : "**External links are only visible to Support Staff**)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28.08.2010, 19:21
Josh
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiaz View Post
Josh, please visit supportchat and we will do a teamviewer live session. im sure we will find the source of this and be able to fix it.
Will do this sometime later.

@remi
I don't actually have any antivirus software installed and the firewall is build into OS X but is disabled, all of which I had prior to the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29.08.2010, 01:41
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

That is why I recommended running an antivirus scan. However, most Mac users do not use one, because there are fewer AV products available.

@remi,
You list of dangerous file types is incomplete. However, t does not matter for OS-X users.

pif and rtf are no longer problems (MS Word no longer will confuse RTF and DOC since 2000). PIF has been replaced by LNK since Windows 2000.

The number of dangerous extensions for MS Office 2003 and later has doubled and there are several more directly executable script languages now.

Opera must not have updated that list since before Windows 2000. By keeping the list on-line, they do a disservice to NT family users (including Windows 2000 through "7").
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 29.08.2010, 12:18
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbits View Post
@remi,
You list of dangerous file types is incomplete. However, t does not matter for OS-X users.

pif and rtf are no longer problems (MS Word no longer will confuse RTF and DOC since 2000). PIF has been replaced by LNK since Windows 2000.

The number of dangerous extensions for MS Office 2003 and later has doubled and there are several more directly executable script languages now.

Opera must not have updated that list since before Windows 2000. By keeping the list on-line, they do a disservice to NT family users (including Windows 2000 through "7").
It's not my list and I know that it's incomplete. It's Opera's list. Please, tell them. They'll like to hear from a great expert like you.

I wrote explicitly that the list is for Windoze. Josh didn't tell anything about the OS.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29.08.2010, 12:24
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbits View Post
...However, most Mac users do not use one, because there are fewer AV products available.
This is not the reason. The threat is much smaller for more professional platforms. Since there's no demand, there's almost no supply. One of the principal laws of Economics at work.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 31.08.2010, 04:06
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

Quote:
The threat is much smaller for more professional platforms.
I do not know why there is less demand, other than the smaller number of users. Real black hats are probably exponentially less interested in a platform as the number of users goes down (the same with "Script-kiddies").

However many of the internet break-ins to steal credit card numbers and other information use either IBM Z or Linux with Apache and MySQL, PostgresSQL, or Oracle. There is a serious need, but we hear about the break-ins less often. Remember that before Symantec bought Norton, their products were all for MacOS and some of that old code is still around.

Windoze systems are now much harder to hack into that 10 years ago (when Microsoft finally started to take security seriously). This is especially true when most local network services are stopped (Server service, Client service, and so on). They are intended for large local networks, not 2 machine local networks.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 31.08.2010, 12:33
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree and I believe you. This is becoming an interesting off-topic discussion.

Most break-ins in corporate environments are not reported because that would damage their corporate image.

I think smart phones will be the next target, because there will be many more of them than there are Windoze PCs, because most people on this planet can't afford buying a classical computer. The question is which platforms will prevail.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 29.09.2010, 22:26
ddd
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

same problem
no firewall
win7 64
only with rapidshare
check fotos

**External links are only visible to Support Staff**
**External links are only visible to Support Staff**
**External links are only visible to Support Staff**
**External links are only visible to Support Staff**

PS: see how uploaded.to is downloading faster with ~50kB than RS with ~600kB
Edit:
- background shows total traffic (FritzBox)

Last edited by ddd; 29.09.2010 at 22:30.
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 14:12.
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.