Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 2024-11-01 05:28 CET |
My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap |
View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||
0001096 | aMule | Sharedfiles | public | 2007-05-02 16:43 | 2008-02-21 22:52 | ||||
Reporter | pmontepagano | ||||||||
Assigned To | Xaignar | ||||||||
Priority | normal | Severity | block | Reproducibility | have not tried | ||||
Status | resolved | Resolution | won't fix | ||||||
Platform | OS | OS Version | |||||||
Product Version | 2.1.3 | ||||||||
Target Version | Fixed in Version | ||||||||
Summary | 0001096: aMule uses up ALL resources at startup when there are many new files in the shared folder | ||||||||
Description | I have a specific folder into which I download everything from different protocols (torrent, amule, soulseek, etc). I, for instance, I don't use aMule for a week, and during that week I did many downloads, the moment I startup aMule, everything freezes, sometimes for several minutes, because aMule is exploring the new files, and producing their AICH. This whole process is VERY I/O intensive, since it has to read all that data from the hard drive. My proposal is the following: Can't you divide the part of the code of aMule that scans files and produces their AICH code into another process, and give it a VERY low NICE? (Or, if we are in a Windows enviroment, a low "priority") This way starting up aMule would be less painful, and new files would be added progressively. | ||||||||
Additional Information | I'm using aMule 2.1.3, on Gentoo Linux (kernel 2.6.15). | ||||||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||||
Fixed in Revision | |||||||||
Operating System | Any | ||||||||
Attached Files | |||||||||
Notes | |
(0002274) Kry (manager) 2007-05-03 18:18 |
The hashing is already done on a thread and with the lowest priority. |
(0002637) Xaignar (manager) 2008-02-21 22:52 |
I'm marking this as "won't fix". As Kry pointed out, we already give the relevant thread the lowest possible priority, and moving the task to a seperate problem would just complicate the issue even further, and not help that much, as this is an issue of IO-scheduling rather than CPU-scheduling. |
Issue History | |||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
2007-05-02 16:43 | pmontepagano | New Issue | |
2007-05-02 16:43 | pmontepagano | Operating System | => Any |
2007-05-03 18:18 | Kry | Note Added: 0002274 | |
2008-02-21 22:52 | Xaignar | Status | new => resolved |
2008-02-21 22:52 | Xaignar | Resolution | open => won't fix |
2008-02-21 22:52 | Xaignar | Assigned To | => Xaignar |
2008-02-21 22:52 | Xaignar | Note Added: 0002637 |
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 MantisBT Team |