JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 13.01.2020, 13:17
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default Rule packagizer split

Dialog: Analyse and Add Links
How to set it to automatically split into 10k in the 1 package?
The same package name

Rule packagizer:???
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 13.01.2020, 15:20
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

can not within jd &&/or the packagiser does not count, only solution
place your urls into a text file, new line for each url
count the line numbers
copy
either add via add links dialog or folder watch rule.
set pakagename
paste urls
done

just note if you return more than one downloadlink per input url your math needs to adjust if you want a max package size
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]

Last edited by raztoki; 13.01.2020 at 15:25.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 13.01.2020, 15:24
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

Please tutorial, screenshot setting.

Example, I have 17 million lines/links and I want them to add 10k for each package. All links are the same name server. Manual splitting takes too much time.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 13.01.2020, 16:16
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

This is 1,700 manually add operations. Too much.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 14.01.2020, 02:32
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

I have no screen shots, as stated there is no way (as core function) at this time to split existing package based on count. It maybe possible via event scripter and script created by you!, far as I know no one has written and shared a script for this.

My recommendation was before you add links, thus could control outcome on assuming x links would be returned from y input links. Place them all within specified package name that you supply.
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14.01.2020, 10:04
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

You can add and then manually split in Linkgrabber. A lot of work.

I see only the option that does not split packages.
Menu -> Others -> Split by packages by hoster
Split only into two packages
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14.01.2020, 10:46
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

post adding them sure, more work. hence why I said to do it at the stage of adding link to . No idea if its workable solution for you.
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14.01.2020, 11:59
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

Already 3 days can not download very small files. Too low speed for a large package 10k. With such a low speed it makes no further sense! even though the server has no limits!
Only packages with 100 links are instant download. High-Speed
If it is a small package, e.g. 100 links. It is Max 20. works, and if it is a bit larger 10k, it only work 2-4 simultaneous downloads, so very low speed.

So to add 100 links, I need to manually copy one package and copy it a 10000 times COPY/PASTE AND PARSE when I have 1M links? OMG!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 14.01.2020, 14:13
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

if your returning 1million download links, you should look at something more efficient for your needs and requirements. JD isn't designed for that type of intensive use. I'm well aware that you've been pushing the boundaries for years. If JD was owned/run/sold by todays large software companies I'm sure they would automatically deem your use as commercial, based on the sheer volume that you download (how could someone require/need that much content). JD was only ever designed to assist with managing downloads from your favourite websites and not download the entire site.

Moving forward I guess you can either you find another solution in which works to your needs, or just utile it as is, and take the short comings for what they are.

raztoki
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15.01.2020, 04:38
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

I am talking about splitting packages, and you are bringing everything to one all the time ... You are strengthening your trend ... which does not allow free download ... With all due respect to all users. The download limit for all JD2 users is 10k files and you can't download anything anymore. Do not underestimate the problem of the download limit, downloading restrictions, because if it is limited in these cases, sooner or later JD2 will cease to be a download tool.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 16.01.2020, 05:31
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

Thats not what I said, I will reiterate, If you want to split your DownloadLinks into packages based on a count, you need to either make a event scripter script (yourself) or manage your adding links via the means I mentioned above to achieve your end goal (alternative measure). I don't see Appwork adding such a feature, which is why I responded with this advice.

In respects to volume downloads, my statements stand true. You use JD outside of its design, hence why you have so many performance issues. You can't expect JD to work for you in the same manner as everyone else. If I owned JD I would make you pay for a commercial licence to reflect your usage and even a support package to help assist with your queries.

JD works fine under normal usage, it even works well for most heavy users. You're neither of these.

raztoki
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 18.01.2020, 21:06
djmakinera djmakinera is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 8,445
Default

If large files are downloaded with almost unlimited simultaneous downloads.
If TINY files are not downloaded with max.
I don't know why tiny files are a bottleneck here.
Even if it splits into smaller packages, unfortunately it doesn't change, it doesn't increase simultaneous downloads. There probably was a heavy I / O load and a lot of processor power.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20.01.2020, 15:38
raztoki's Avatar
raztoki raztoki is offline
English Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 16,554
Default

yes covered numerous times before, small files require all the overheads large ones do, just happens in quicker secession.

nothing new.
__________________
raztoki @ jDownloader reporter/developer
http://svn.jdownloader.org/users/170

Don't fight the system, use it to your advantage. :]
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 07:58.
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.