platin_ Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Hi to the bicomet stuff, On several versions (after the 0.70, not sure about the exact version it started) up to the current version (0.79) there's seems to be a disturbing phenomenon, which can be referred, I believe, as a memory leak. Going Back to version 0.70 solved this problem. On the following snapshot you can see the memory usage of a bitcomet client thats was working for a day and a half with the following information: - Bitcomet ver 0.77 with default configurations, with only two download tasks (with a bit more trackers, about 20 per task, than the usual use). - WinXP SP2 (with 2GB ram default VM configuration). - 1.5Mb/128Kb cable connection to the internet. - Dialup connection (l2tp) to the ISP (its a direct connection - I get a public IP) with Windows Firewall only. - Every about 1 or 2 minutes, bitcomet takes all the cpu for 1-2 seconds. Do you aware of this bug? Thanks, AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazybruce Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 hey I'm unaware of that too. windows XP sp2 0.79 bitcomet ADSL router but TheBigCrap guy is right about 0.79 that when you select 2 downloads at once nd press 'start' the program crashes and bug report thing comes. this ONLY happens to 0.79. :huh: next is that resume download... it said resume download at program start-up. But when I shut down and start it back the thing doesn't auto-resume, so most of my connection was wasted. :( all this happen ever since i get versions newer than 0.70, guess I better get that version back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franpa Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 sheesh there needs to be a sticky explaining how bitcomet works with memory -.-' its normal for it to use an amount of memory equivalent to what has already been downloaded in the current session. this is how its been for eons and yea.... its how it pro longs hard drive life i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platin_ Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 sheesh there needs to be a sticky explaining how bitcomet works with memory -.-' its normal for it to use an amount of memory equivalent to what has already been downloaded in the current session. this is how its been for eons and yea.... its how it pro longs hard drive life i think. franpa, Where exactly did you see any explanation that describes how bitcomet is using the memory to its limits?? Please, do submit a link. Anyway from my perspective, keeping the hard drive healthy is done with the cache mechanism which takes up to 50mb by default. And as I hinted in my original post, going back to version 0.70 solved the problem, which means that it was using a reasonable amount of memory up to around 50mb with the same 2 tasks! (So if it should work the way you mentioned, it's not being done for ages... :-)) Bitcomet stuff, Please pay attention to my original post, and please reply to it. Thanks, AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kluelos Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 We do try to tell people that they should *expect* problems with versions that aren't noted as "Stable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franpa Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 most threads on this forum relating to memory describe how bitcomet uses. memory... try using the search feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Shroud Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 BitComet's cache alone will use upto 50 megs of memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platin_ Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 kluelos, franpa & Dark_Shroud, All I was saying is that on the newer versions of Bitcomet up to 0.79, there was an exceptional memory usage of 418MB on the RAM and 1.7GB(!!!) on the VM, and growing.... I know that the cache takes up to 50MB, and actually I mentioned that when I moved back to 0.70, the memory peak was a bit more than 50MB, which is OK. I reviewed some of the posts with the same problem I had, and all the replies were suggestions how maybe it can be solved. No single reply of "maybe it is a bug"... I know those new versions are not declared as stable versions, that's why I've got back to version 0.70. Still, bugs on unstable version should be reported too (as I did), otherwise the developers may not be aware of them... So, [...big breath...] does anybody here accept my claim (that it's a memory leak), or am I just out of my mind, mumbling jumbling all around??? :) Thanks, AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The UnUsual Suspect Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I agree that you have experienced an unacceptable amount of memory usage. I will leave it up to the developers to determine if this is classified as a "leak" or not. Thank you for reporting this. Suspect and the Bit Comet Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now