the forums at degreez.net

8 Torrents:
9.2MB, 14MB, 14.2MB, 14.4MB, 14.7MB, 15.1MB, 26.3MB, 26.3MB and 26.4MB

I should also say that some of the files are 12, 14 and 6MB, so this ram usage is quite higher than before.

i think there is a memory leak. my computer starts slowing down and applications load slower after a torrent has been open for a while. i opened task manager and it said i only had 34 mb of free ram left!!! all i had open was the bit tornado and internet explorer. with 512 ram i should be able to run 2 programs without a problem wouldnt u say? as soon as i closed the torrent my ram shot back up to 357 ram so we know that it was bt that was taking up all the ram. why does bit tornado need over 300 megs of ram????????????

I'm running 0.3.7 and I've got two torrents open. One's using 40,396Kb[b] and the other [b]37,532Kb[b]. Respectively, the first is seeding at [b]11Kb/s[b] on the DSL/Cable setting. The second is downloading at [b]112Kb/s[b] and has the same speed setting.

Physical Memory:
Total [b]654836Kb[b]
Available [b]73456Kb[b]
System Cache [b]460464Kb[b]

OS=WinXP Pro SP1 fully patched.
CPU=P4 1.7Ghz

Hope that helps!

I'm having similar problems...running a P4 3.4 GHZ Extreme...2GB of Corsair Extreme RAM, 2 tera Raid 5 array, Windows XP. System's plentiful...but right now Windows has had to increase my virtual mem 4 times now to about 3 gigs. Each torrent (I usually have 10 going) takes 5-10% of my CPU and a good 40 megs of RAM each. This is downloading 100 meg anime series files, and I'm using the latest revision of Bittornado with the latest revision of the plugin client. I've had to temporarily switch to ABC. Here's something else a bit funky...for some reason even using NetLimiter it'll knock me off the net, and I'm on a 6.0/768 connection (with down limited to 150 k and up limited to 30 k to be safe). Other clients pulling twice as much don't do this, but for some reason this does even when pulling nothing. And my speeds are horrendous...for instance...I'm pulling down Naruto 91 simultaneously (just for the hell of it) on Bittornado and ABC...getting 60 k on the latter and 1.5 on the former...

I haven't updated every version, but 0.3.7 is using about 35mb for each torrent, which is basically no better than it used to be. That's including ones where I'm connected to less than 50 people.
I hope the single process with multiple torrents is coming soon

Curious enough I no longer have the same memeroy leak problems.

Started a torrent...no problems. Even when only seeding. afterwards I tried 2 torents and still no problems.


Oh well...fixed a bug without doing anything.

Running version 3.3. I was experiencing a memory leak. When I checked the "enable read/write buffering" no more or, at the most, a very minor leak.

I take back what I said. Still experiencing memory leak, although it is slower (available: 259044 after 1 hr 10 minutes. Started with approximately 320000)

to Guest2: That really doesn't sound like a memory leak. During the course of normal use, the amount of available memory will go up and down. The amount stated above is within normal operating parameters.

However, what is *NOT* normal is when someone starts with 512 MB and within roughly 1 hour they are down to under 50. If all they have open is 1 torrent and IE, that indicates a major memory leak since according to TaskManager most of the RAM is unaccounted for. It's just listed in System Cache. For some reason BT is not recycling the RAM it uses. But why is it only happening to some people? It doesn't seem to matter which version is being used. There have been people saying that they are only seeing it in the latest build, and others saying this issue has been going on ever since they first started using BT. Others say that it was fixed in one version or another. Sometimes it comes back and sometimes it doesn't. What the hell is going on??? Is there some Windows issue at play here? I am assuming that everyone having problems is on some variation of Windows, since I haven't seen anyone mention *nix problems.

One thing I have noticed for me is that opening Winamp seems to exacerbate problems. The memory leak is an ongoing issue, but when Winamp is added into the mix, system slowdown starts to occur after a short period. If Winamp is not opened, the memory just goes down to around 100 and hovers in that area, and if it gets below a certain point Windows frees up a bit from the cache. But slowdown/freezing is never an issue. Just an observation I had. Might have nothing whatsoever to do with BT, except this only happens when i have BT and Winamp open simultaneously.

BTW, I am on a P4 2.66 Ghz(Bus Speed=533)/ 512 DDR SDRAM(PC2700), 80GB SATA HD @ 7200rpm. 128MB nVidia GeForce FX 5200

OS=Windows XP Home fully patched (or at least the MS equivalent of patched )

AV=McAfee VirusScan 8.0
FW=Sygate Firewall Pro 5.5

Isn't it normal behavior for an O/S to make use of any unused memory as a disk cache? As long as the O/S is freeing up that cache for apps that actually need the memory when they load, there is nothing wrong with 100% of your memory being consumed.

Err... no it is not alright for any app to force the system to use 100% of available memory for extended periods of time. This causes your computer to work harder than needed. That would be like saying "isn't it ok for your car's engine to rev at redline whenever you press the accelerator at all"

As for normal behavior for an OS... it depends on the OS. On non NT based Windows systems, the memory is not used very efficiently. This is a major reason for their instability and frequent crashes. NT based Windows is much better at handling memory, but why force it to work overtime? If your goal is to make your XP start acting like Win98 then that might be fine Trapping your memory in cache is not efficient since it's like making use of only part of the memory installed, effectively acting as though there is only 100 MB ram installed instead of 512

[quote="Anonymous"]to Guest2: That really doesn't sound like a memory leak. During the course of normal use, the amount of available memory will go up and down. The amount stated above is within normal operating parameters.

I see. That's good to know.

But I do have one concern left. Would this suggest that if you leave your BT open long enough that eventually the memory on your computer would deplete? I had a torrent stay open overnight and when I checked my memory on my computer it dropped from 320000 to 42000

[quote="Anonymous"]to Guest2: That really doesn't sound like a memory leak. During the course of normal use, the amount of available memory will go up and down. The amount stated above is within normal operating parameters.

I see. That's good to know.

But I do have one concern left. Would this suggest that if you leave your BT open long enough that eventually the memory on your computer would deplete? I had a torrent stay open overnight and when I checked my memory on my computer it dropped from 320000 to 42000

PIIII, 2.8GHz <<<<now what contraption is a pIIII lol
ure crashing ure computer by shuting it down,juts wait a bit ctrl + alt+del will eventually work

Drools at that system

I don't know what to say about the mem usage and being knocked offline.

But as to the simultaneous download of the same file using 2 different clients... That test really doesn't say anything conclusive. Chances are that each client is connected to a totally different set of peers (bit tornado has an option to only allow 1 connection per IP. ABC probably has this feature as well) Depending on the peers' upload settings, the speeds seen can be drastically different. Also, it might be that ABC was connected to fast uploaders and finished a piece rather quickly which gives it a head start to begin with. I'm sure you have noticed that when you download a file, it starts off slow because you haven't contributed to the swarm yet. As soon as you have a completed piece that can be shared, your download rate increases dramatically. But hypothetically... assuming that your download rate is unlimited, you will still only download as fast as the people can upload to you. The upload rate varies drastically, and it seems to be a matter of luck whether you get connected to someone with a T3+ capability or somebody severely limited at say 128kb.