JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27.05.2009, 12:58
hamp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Memory usage with new version

Hi, I've just updated to the new version and works fine, but memory usage increased a lot. Now is taking 549.764KB. Previous version was a little memory hungry, but not that much.
Any tips to reduce the memory usage ?

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27.05.2009, 14:21
chubasco chubasco is offline
Junior Loader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 12
Default

gotta agree with you. On the new version. the memory footprint has pretty well doubled.

Far more worrying and a much worse problem - the cpu usage has gone from a few percent, to at least 30 (when just d/ling), up to 100% and locking up the whole machine. Above about 60% use and in starts to have really bad impact on other things, my browser stops responding, the download speed plummets , windows explorer barelty creeps along - directory windows pretty well stop functioning....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27.05.2009, 14:32
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 67,320
Default

what os? what java? how many chunks / downloads?

you can try to start jd with the follwing command and see if it helps

java -Xmx512m -Xms64mb -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=0 -XX:MaxHeapFreeRatio=0 -jar JDownloader.jar
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27.05.2009, 14:53
hamp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Win Xp SP3, java 1.6u10. 6 chunks and 4 downloads.
When it finished downloading, the memory got reduced to about 150 MB.

I will try that when i get back from work.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27.05.2009, 15:08
james2342342
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hamp View Post
Hi, I've just updated to the new version and works fine, but memory usage increased a lot. Now is taking 549.764KB. Previous version was a little memory hungry, but not that much.
Any tips to reduce the memory usage ?

Thanks
under performance disable enable extended effects, and disable windows decoration.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 28.05.2009, 13:43
hamp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I disabled all effects, and tried that command line. Now it uses about 490MB.
Still very high, but as soon as it won't get higher, i can live with it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28.05.2009, 14:33
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 721
Default

I'm downloading one file at the moment.
Have effects off, running under Win2k, Java 1.6

Process "javaw.exe" is using 45 MB of RAM.

Nothing else significant, Opera browser is using 150 MB, HCEnc (encoder) is using another 150 MB.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28.05.2009, 15:46
sunnytimes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wow , your computers must suck :] .. i'm downloading 1 file with all decorations / effects disabled and java.exe is using 31,380K .. its lower than the old version.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 28.05.2009, 20:14
fripp02
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At one point, I noticed my javaw.exe using over 500MB. I shut down this process in the task manager. Upon restarting, javaw.exe used far less memory (around 53MB), but some of the completed downloads from my previous session remained in the download list. I remember that I had used the Cleanup/Remove completed packages command before restarting JD, but it seems that some of the previous sessions remained in memory, resulting in the 500MB usage, and a "database save error" that I noticed in the log may also be related.

I would suggest that a user look at his task manager periodically to see the memory usage, and if javaw.exe is still a running process after shutting down JD, kill the process. Now, if you have another java app running at the same time as JD, this might kill that app too. Also look at the log for database save error.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29.05.2009, 06:37
marion marion is offline
DSL User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 37
Default

XP SP3 here, my java.exe uses 33.676k memory, about the same as the old version.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 29.05.2009, 10:37
God of Dice
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ich habe auch die RAM "Probleme". Ein leerer JD sitzt mit über 250MB im Taskmanager. Wenn ich ein paar Links eintrage, dann sind es schnell 400 MB. Daß der Verbrauch im Betrieb steigt ist klar und auch ok solange keine Speicherlecks vorhanden sind. Aber ein Grundbedarf von 250MB ist schon sehr hoch. Ich hab die Windows Decorations schon abgeschaltet und damit ca. 30 MB gewonnen. Bis jetzt konnte ich noch nicht nachvollziehen wie andere User auf 30 bis 40 MB kommen.
Ich hab Vista x64 SP2 mit Java 6 U 12. In der neuen JD Version scheint jetzt auch automatisch die x64 Version von Java genommen zu werden.

Edt by Jiaz: scheint so das allgemein die os und java in 64 bit eine etwas andre speicherverwaltung, gc einstellungen haben...denn meist sind es die 64bit user wo über höheren speichervrebrauch reden...wir sind dauernd dabei den speicherverbrauchn zu minimiueren und mit der neusten version sollte das auch wieder nen guten schritt weitergeklappt haben

Last edited by Jiaz; 01.06.2009 at 11:55.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01.06.2009, 02:41
whazzup
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

using 0.5.949 now, latest java installed.

java.exe is using 74,888K on my XP SP2 desktop (w/ 1 file downloading, 10 queued files), and 70,340K on my Windows 7 notebook (1 file downloading, 9 queued files).

and memory usage is inching slowly, but surely, upwards.

After disabling Extended Effects, Decorations, and using Windows Style, about a minute after starting, java.exe will be using about 60,000K, for both machines, with the same files as above.

Hopefully more can be done to reduce the footprint, to make a good program better. And a big THANK YOU, for all the work done thus far!

Last edited by whazzup; 01.06.2009 at 02:59.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01.06.2009, 11:29
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool Image Names

Quote:
Originally Posted by fripp02 View Post
At one point, I noticed my javaw.exe using over 500MB. I shut down this process in the task manager. Upon restarting, javaw.exe used far less memory (around 53MB), but some of the completed downloads from my previous session remained in the download list. I remember that I had used the Cleanup/Remove completed packages command before restarting JD, but it seems that some of the previous sessions remained in memory, resulting in the 500MB usage, and a "database save error" that I noticed in the log may also be related.

I would suggest that a user look at his task manager periodically to see the memory usage, and if javaw.exe is still a running process after shutting down JD, kill the process. Now, if you have another java app running at the same time as JD, this might kill that app too. Also look at the log for database save error.
Why is jD 0.5 using java(w).exe as Image Name in the task manager? jD 0.4 uses JDownloader.exe as Image Name.
:confused:
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01.06.2009, 11:58
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 67,320
Default

its random what its using, depens on what vm , what os and many more factors..
for me it never used jdownloader.exe
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02.06.2009, 11:45
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool updating mess

I'm using XP SP3 and SP1. On both machines jD 0.4 uses JDownloader.exe as the image name. It has always been this way, because I regularly check memory and CPU usage.

jD 0.5 consistently uses javaw.exe on the SP3 machine.

All other java programs, except Duplicate File Searcher, use their own Image Names. I block all applications from accessing the Internet, unless they are downloaders.

Since I block Duplicate File Searcher, I also block jD 0.5. and my firewall always asks whether it may access the Internet when I start up jD 0.5.

I've set the option "Update only at user request" in all my versions of jD. Why does jD 0.5 want to update anything if I explicitly configured it not to do so?
:confused:

Last edited by remi; 03.06.2009 at 10:23. Reason: get rid of red colour
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 21:38.
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 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.