GoogleCodeExporter
commented
8 years ago Can you be more specific about your computer specifications? CPU, RAM, ect...Original comment by ineedali...@gmail.com on 16 Mar 2010 at 2:00
Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
GoogleCodeExporter
commented
8 years ago Can you be more specific about your computer specifications? CPU, RAM, ect...Original comment by ineedali...@gmail.com on 16 Mar 2010 at 2:00
GoogleCodeExporter
commented
8 years ago The times in your log where it's taking the largest amount of time looks like
it's
the code interacting with your history.db file. 10 minutes to initially load
and
start accessing it, then 30 minutes to delete its contents as it was past the
configured time-period.
It could be that your history.db was *very* large, or it's possible that the
file is
stored on an area of your harddrive that's going bad (or there was a LOT of
high-priority file I/O going on) such that it took a long time to read/write
it. If
this file was excessively fragmented this could cause issues as well. My gut
feeling
is that the file was excessively large. I would recommend changing the X in
your
"'Delete' every X days" setting to a smaller value. Also, in our Beta Release
train
we've added an option to allow you to limit the maximum size this file could
grow to
- if you're willing to install our most recent Beta Release this option should
serve
you well.
Is the problem reproducible? If so, please bump up your tracelog level to
verbose,
reproduce the problem, and attach your peerblock.log file here. (No need to
post it
inline, especially as it will be even larger...) To change your tracelog
level, open
peerblock.conf with e.g. Notepad and find the section for "TraceLog"; for the
"Level"
setting in here, change the value from a "5" to "6". When you're finished
testing
this for us, don't forget to change it back to a 5 to prevent any impact to your
system's performance (or disk usage, or "tracelog spam") from this higher
log-level!Original comment by peerbloc...@gmail.com on 16 Mar 2010 at 2:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
thenihil...@gmail.comon 15 Mar 2010 at 11:38