Bitcomet hogging memory

[MrYumYum]

I've noticed my physical memory usage (watched it from task manager) keeps rising as long as my bitcomet is open, i tried leaving my computer on with bitcomet closed and my memory stayed the same (did not rise abnormally)

i've read somewhere in this forum that this is normal (for some reason i can't recall), the problem is it wont go back to regular levels (around 25%) after completely closing/restarting bitcomet, it will only do so after a fresh reboot of my computer

its bothering me because im seeding 24/7 (= memory always rising) and i hate to have to reboot every other day

every time it reaches 40% and higher it's starting to effect my computer performance (=takes more time to do things, audio/video jamming, gets stuck for a short while) and it becomes unbareable after a day or two

I'm asking for help at this forum because i can't seem to find any other explanation for the memory rise, and it only happens while bitcomet is on

here's some info:

1) What version of BitComet are you using?

1.32 64 bit

2) What type of Internet connection do you have (ADSL, etc.)?

ADSL 5MB

3) Do you have a modem? Do you use a router? What make and model are each one of them? Have you forwarded your port?

Irrelevant, ports are forwarded , no problems with connecting to my provider

4) If you have more than one router, be sure to mention the make and model of both devices, how are they connected (i.e. in which connector of both devices is the network cable plugged) and which one of the devices is connected to or is the modem.

Also, if you have more than one computer make sure to mention in this case, to which router is every one of them connected.

Irrelevant

5) What version of Windows, Firewall and Antivirus do you use?

Windowns 7 ultimate SP1, windows firewall is off, using avg internet security 2012 with bitcomet in its firewalls exceptions

6) If you are asking about a specific torrent or file that you have downloaded, make sure that you include the complete torrent name, as well as the complete names of the files and their respective extensions/formats (e.g.: .rar, .wma, .bin, .cue, etc.).

Irrelevant

7) For speed-related issues, please run various speed tests at a site such as speedtest.net (make sure that no other computer is using your Internet connection and that all other programs - including BitComet - are closed, during the tests). Include the results, along with the settings that you are presently using, in your post, so that we may review and offer suggestions to improve its performance.

Irrelevant

thanks for your time

Edited April 16, 2012 by MrYumYum (see edit history)

[kluelos]

I wouldn't describe what you described as "normal", not without knowing more about your system.

BitComet uses memory. It uses more memory to improve its performance. Memory is meant to be used. It serves no one if it just sits there not being used. If applications don't use all of the memory that they advantageously can, I would say that there is something wrong with those applications.

This is completely different from having memory-use problems, and "uses a lot of memory" <> "has a memory problem". I am aware that some people obsessively watch their memory usage, but I've never understood why. If there are no performance problems, then memory use seems to be an entirely moot point. OTOH if there ARE performance problems, if other apps are complaining about low memory then it's a different story, but you would presumably have mentioned those problems if you were having them.

As for relinquishing memory, I think you should think for a bit about what you are seeing, as opposed to the conclusions you are drawing from it.

[MrYumYum]

I wouldn't describe what you described as "normal", not without knowing more about your system.

BitComet uses memory. It uses more memory to improve its performance. Memory is meant to be used. It serves no one if it just sits there not being used. If applications don't use all of the memory that they advantageously can, I would say that there is something wrong with those applications.

This is completely different from having memory-use problems, and "uses a lot of memory" <> "has a memory problem". I am aware that some people obsessively watch their memory usage, but I've never understood why. If there are no performance problems, then memory use seems to be an entirely moot point. OTOH if there ARE performance problems, if other apps are complaining about low memory then it's a different story, but you would presumably have mentioned those problems if you were having them.

As for relinquishing memory, I think you should think for a bit about what you are seeing, as opposed to the conclusions you are drawing from it.

my units spec's:

intel i7 860 2.8 ghz cpu

8GB of 1333 mhz ram

over 1tb of free hd space

evga geforce 560 ti gpu

proper cooling and ventilation

shouldnt the memory beeing used by bitcomet be released after shutting it down?

like i said i'm usure about where to go(or think about) from here which is why i turned here for help,

the problem appears when bitcomet is on therefore bitcomet is the cause of it

Edited April 16, 2012 by MrYumYum (see edit history)

[The UnUsual Suspect]

is bitcomet process clearing from task manager when you shut it down?

[greywizard]

Yep, I don't exactly understand that part either. What do you mean by "it won't go back after restarting BitComet"?

[kluelos]

shouldnt the memory beeing used by bitcomet be released after shutting it down?

That's exactly what I asked you to think about, separating what you see from the conclusion you're drawing.

Let's define what you mean by "released". Presumably you mean "available for use by other things". Well, fine, but how do you know it isn't? (Trick question.)

Or do you mean, "marked as no longer being used by a particular application"? Well, wait: whose job is that, exactly, running around re-earmarking memory? I'd call that process a waste of CPU's, myself. I mean, sure, you mark memory as "in use" by an app when it starts being used, but marking it as unused when a process stops using it? A process that spends its time continually asking each OTHER process, "are you still using this?" "Are you still using this?" and they'd have to spend time 1) checking and 2) answering. Interrupt my work every few hundred nanoseconds to force me to check my memory use for you? Or force me to call unmalloc() every time I'm done with a subroutine? Nah, waste of cycles. You do your housekeeping when you need to, but you don't obsess about it. You just leave it as is until something ELSE uses that memory. You mark it as "available if the memory manager asks for it", which is not the same as spending the time to display that it's unused.

I'm not saying that is what's happening, I'm saying it could be, and it's the most efficient way to do things, but you don't know for certain that it's not -- and you're not reporting the problems that would be expected from memory conflicts. You are, instead, guessing that issues are being caused by low memory availability without ever having been told that by any of these applications.

Your report that the memory remains marked as used by BC even after BC has been shut down, strongly argues that memory doesn't get re-classified as "unused" just because a process relinquishes it.

It's been my sad experience with Windows since '95 that instability increases with mere time -- long before bittorrent came along, systems generally started screwing up if they've been running nonstop for two to four days, and need to be rebooted. The only real exceptions are machines dedicated to one task and not running the variety of other applications most people use -- like file servers.

When you do have low memory issues, on the other hand, you are basically forcing the machine to run from virtual memory, out of its paging file. When that happens it's unmistakable. The *nix guys call this "running in Swap". Just about every task now requires that it be paged in and out of actual memory -- written to and read from the paging file on the disk before any useful work can be done on that task. Absolutely everything slows to a crawl, even screen updates. You'd be screaming.

By the way, it's not necessary to quote the post you're replying to, when that post is right above yours anyway. We don't need to read everything twice. We don't need to read everything twice. Use the quote button only when the message you're replying to is way back there -- and even then it's more effective to just say, @username -- or when you are just addressing a particular part of the message, and then you trim the quote down to only what you're replying to, as I did for this message.

Otherwise, simply scroll down to the "Reply to this Topic" box and start typing.

[MrYumYum]

By the way, it's not necessary to quote the post you're replying to, when that post is right above yours anyway. We don't need to read everything twice. We don't need to read everything twice. Use the quote button only when the message you're replying to is way back there -- and even then it's more effective to just say, @username -- or when you are just addressing a particular part of the message, and then you trim the quote down to only what you're replying to, as I did for this message.

noted :)

Let's define what you mean by "released". Presumably you mean "available for use by other things". Well, fine, but how do you know it isn't? (Trick question.)

Or do you mean, "marked as no longer being used by a particular application"? Well, wait: whose job is that, exactly, running around re-earmarking memory? I'd call that process a waste of CPU's, myself. I mean, sure, you mark memory as "in use" by an app when it starts being used, but marking it as unused when a process stops using it? A process that spends its time continually asking each OTHER process, "are you still using this?" "Are you still using this?" and they'd have to spend time 1) checking and 2) answering. Interrupt my work every few hundred nanoseconds to force me to check my memory use for you? Or force me to call unmalloc() every time I'm done with a subroutine? Nah, waste of cycles. You do your housekeeping when you need to, but you don't obsess about it. You just leave it as is until something ELSE uses that memory. You mark it as "available if the memory manager asks for it", which is not the same as spending the time to display that it's unused.

It's been my sad experience with Windows since '95 that instability increases with mere time -- long before bittorrent came along, systems generally started screwing up if they've been running nonstop for two to four days, and need to be rebooted. The only real exceptions are machines dedicated to one task and not running the variety of other applications most people use -- like file servers.

When you do have low memory issues, on the other hand, you are basically forcing the machine to run from virtual memory, out of its paging file. When that happens it's unmistakable. The *nix guys call this "running in Swap". Just about every task now requires that it be paged in and out of actual memory -- written to and read from the paging file on the disk before any useful work can be done on that task. Absolutely everything slows to a crawl, even screen updates. You'd be screaming.

very informative, thank you

so what you're saying is that the probabilty is high of it beeing a low memory issue caused by the fact "the memory doesn't get re-classified as "unused" just because a process relinquishes it" based on the information i've given, how can i make sure thats the cause? and where do i go from there?

@The UnUsual Suspect -

It doe's however the physical memory read from task manager remains high

@greywizard-

I mean it keeps rising as long as bitcomet is on (starting at around 25%), and when i shut it down memory usage seems to hold its last value (say i closed it when the mem usage was 50%, it stays 50% even though bitcomet is no longer running)

Edited April 17, 2012 by MrYumYum (see edit history)

[kluelos]

Many years ago, there were little utilities called "RAM defragmenters", that sold themselves on the proposition that memory became fragmented just like disk drives, and that this harmed performance -- so this handy utility would save Windows from itself by recovering all those lost fragments of memory and reassembling them into useable chunks.

Nobody ever came up with any proof that this was actually needed or beneficial, and Microsoft itself finally said they didn't really do squat for Windows performance -- that the analogy was completely wrong and not applicable. One address, another address, it doesn't matter to memory. There's no drive head to move back and forth before you can read from or write to RAM, no advantage at all to having things contiguous in memory and no disadvantage from not being contiguous.

But if you can find any of these RAM defragmenters around, they do try to gather things up, so I imagine they might show you a better picture of your memory. Now whether they will work under Win7, I have no idea. Their heyday was in the Win98 era.

But I'm still not convinced that you have a memory problem in the first place. Instability, yes, but I have that issue too, and it doesn't change when I add or remove RAM. Windows just needs a reboot every couple of days.

[MrYumYum]

i see

thats too bad

thank you

[greywizard]

Well, our question was "does the BitComet.exe process disappear from TaskManager upon closing the application?". If that happens and the process is gracefully killed then the question is WHO uses that memory?

YOU are the one who is looking at the Task Manager list, so we can't answer for you WHICH other process displays high memory usage after you close BitComet.

But if the BitComet process has closed, it's not its business anymore who is using your memory, is it?