Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
The video doesn't show which application used the memory. Could it be the
system caching the file?
You could suggest turning off file caching (a session settings).
Was qBittorrent built as a 64 bit application?
Original comment by arvid.no...@gmail.com
on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:39
Arvid > No qBittorrent was build as 32bits.
Is the session setting sessionSettings.cache_size ?
BlaXpirit > sessionSettings.cache_size can be altered from advanced properties
in qBittorrent. Please try lowering the value and see if it changes anything.
Original comment by dch...@gmail.com
on 14 Jun 2010 at 4:44
No. my point was that since the video didn't show which application was using
the RAM, it might be the Operating system itself, for file caching. This is
controlled via disk_io_read_mode, disk_io_write_mode. If you disable disk cache
for all files for both read and write, the OS won't use any RAM for cache.
which configuration was libtorrent built with?
Original comment by arvid.no...@gmail.com
on 15 Jun 2010 at 3:59
Libtorrent was compiled with:
bjam -q --without-python --toolset=msvc variant=release link=static
runtime-link=shared logging=none geoip=static dht-support=on boost=source
Boost v1.42 was compiled with:
bjam -q --with-filesystem --with-thread --toolset=msvc variant=release
link=static runtime-link=shared
Original comment by dch...@gmail.com
on 15 Jun 2010 at 6:38
Issue 89 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by arvid.no...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 2:28
Good news. Someone else is able to reproduce it. Apparently, he is using 64bits
too, this may not be a coincidence.
Original comment by dch...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 2:33
what storage mode is used? sparse, allocate or compact?
Original comment by arvid.no...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 2:45
i've removed some stuff and now it checks files and does not eat all of my free
rams ;}
can anyone confirm it's fixes issue and is it okey to do that?
bool file::open(std::string const& path, int mode, error_code& ec)
{
.....
const static open_mode_t mode_array[] =
{
// read_only
{GENERIC_READ, FILE_SHARE_READ, OPEN_EXISTING}, // , FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS
// write_only
{GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_SHARE_READ, OPEN_ALWAYS}, // , FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS
// read_write
{GENERIC_WRITE | GENERIC_READ, FILE_SHARE_READ, OPEN_ALWAYS}, // ,
FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS
....
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 7:14
[deleted comment]
int allocation_mode = libtorrent::storage_mode_sparse;
add_torrent_params p;
p.storage_mode = (storage_mode_t)allocation_mode;
p.paused = true;
p.duplicate_is_error = false;
p.seed_mode = true; // waits for pressing 'j'
p.auto_managed = true;
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 19 Jun 2010 at 7:29
In my opinion this is not really a bug. The FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS flag will
cause the Windows NT Cache Manager to create a memory-mapped file and map the
file being checked into the process address space. The cache manager on Vista
and above is completely different than XP and below. The OS recognizes that the
RAM was available and will utilize it to the fullest extent. It should also be
noted that the NT cache manager *should* recognize when resources are low and
use a smaller-size mapping.
As Arvid pointed out this OS caching behavior can be disabled. However on
operating systems above Windows XP I would recommend allowing the OS to control
the system resources and caching behavior.
Removing the FILE_FLAG_RANDOM_ACCESS flag will have a negative impact on file
checking speed. If this is not important then feel free to disable the caching
behavior.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
Original comment by david.de...@googlemail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:22
so if i have 32GB ram, and lets recheck my startrek, it uses all ram ;D nuts
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 1:37
would you rather all your ram go to waste, not being used for anything?
It doesn't make any sense for an OS to _not_ use all free ram for caching.
I will stop trying to reproduce this then, thanks for the explanation David!
Original comment by arvid.no...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 2:50
...i bet that users will be 'just happy' ;}
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 3:08
Arvid, according to user feedback, it seems that libtorrent v0.14.10 is NOT
affected by this issue. Is that normal?
Also, even though it is reported here that this behavior is normal, it makes
the computer lag like hell, which does not look normal to me.
I think I will revert to v0.14.10 (again)...
Original comment by dch...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 3:11
or you can use my 'fix' and still use trunk until final fix arrives ;}
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 20 Jun 2010 at 3:47
but it become 'invalid' issue ;D we have been left only with the hope
Original comment by radioman...@gmail.com
on 21 Jun 2010 at 5:51
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dch...@gmail.com
on 14 Jun 2010 at 3:14