Mass Downloader freezes
|Hans Peter Jensen||09/24/2008 12:28 pm|
When I use mass downloader to download multiple files, it will freeze after I decided where to place the downloads. I can''t add any other downloads untill the downloading has finished.
|AlexanderBa||09/25/2008 06:42 am|
|Hans Peter Jensen,
Thank you for writing us.
Please try to set number of threads per download to 1 using File | Default Project Properties dialog. This will work for newly adding projects.
Please write us about the result. Thank you!
|Jan Martin||09/25/2008 09:19 pm|
|> Please try to set number of threads per download to 1 using File | Default Project Properties dialog. This will work for newly adding projects.
Just a small (silly) question..
Doesn''t this defeat one of the main purposes of MD?
I mean, multiple threads make it possible to use all bandwidth to download a file, even if the server is "slow", i.e per connection limit.
I downloaded a file with 1 thread.. Max speed was 50 KB/s
I then did the same with number of threads set to 10, result 498 KB/s.
It is a massive difference, isn''t it?
|AlexanderBa||09/26/2008 03:31 am|
|You may try 2 or 3 threads per file. For slow servers you can use Site Manager to set number of threads.|
|AlexanderBa||01/29/2009 03:38 am|
|We are working on optimization of internal code this time. Could you please try the latest build? You can download it from:
Please write about the result.
|Jiri Sedlacek||01/29/2009 08:14 am|
|> We are working on optimization of internal code this time. Could you please try the latest build? You can download it from:
> Please write about the result.
Hello, I am back again :)
I invest my time for better MD. I compare the latest version of Mass Downloader version 3.06.0020.0759 (http://dl.filekicker.com/send/file/167647-EPZB/mdsetup.exe, 2556648 Bytes, Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:50:45 GMT) with beta version 3.06.0017.0759 (http://www.metaproducts.com/download/betas/mdsetup.exe, 2597752 Bytes, Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:53:01 GMT) on Atom netbook on 8Mbps ADSL, with the same setting for both: 1 active download, max 10 threads per download, min thread size 300KB.
I use as a test file http://msstudios.vo.llnwd.net/o21/mix08/08_WMVs/UX09.wmv with size 154 030 663 bytes.
According to Process Explorer (Properties | Performance Graph | CPU Usage History, one sample every 2 seconds) average CPU load was:
20,24% for 3.06.0020.0759, average speed 785 871 bytes/s, download time 00:03:15, 92 samples of CPU load
19,91% for 3.06.0017.0759, average speed 803 499 bytes/s, download time 00:03:11, 90 samples of CPU load
So, beta build has only 0,33% lower CPU average load, this is so small difference, that it can be only measurement error, not any improving. But we need much better result!. See my previous post with FDM and MD comparison (2% CPU load versus 50% CPU load). Maybe optimization of downloading part of code can''t be sufficient, probably only rewriting this part of code from scratch will lead to lowering CPU load.
|Jiri Sedlacek||04/16/2009 07:51 am|
|I use Mass Downloader Release 126.96.36.1997 now, but I don''t see any improvement. When will be this problem solved?
|AlexanderBa||04/17/2009 03:54 am|
We made significant optimizations of the download speed and CPU usage.
I''ve just tested downloading on 10Mbps LAN and had the average CPU usage at about 3% with the average downloading speed at about 900KBps. GUI has not been unresponsive.
What tests did you made? Please describe these in more detail.
|Alexander||04/17/2009 04:24 am|
Do you have the downloading logs switched on?
|Jiri Sedlacek||04/17/2009 05:55 am|
|> Do you have the downloading logs switched on?
No, I haven''t. I just didn''t see any improvement, that was the reason for my question here.
>I''ve just tested downloading on 10Mbps LAN and had the average CPU usage at about 3% with the average downloading speed at about 900KBps. GUI has not been unresponsive.
It sounds promising, so I will repeat my tests (published above) over weekend and I''ll inform you about results.
But I have one more question for you: Did you download one huge file or hundreds small files in your test? Later is my usual scenario and MD''s GUI is heavily unresponsive in that situation.
|AlexanderBa||04/30/2009 02:17 am|
|In the previous test it was a single huge file.
I''ve tested with the list of about 400 small files with the 5 active downloads and found no essential delay.
How many files do you download simultaneously?
|Jiri Sedlacek||04/30/2009 09:07 am|
|> How many files do you download simultaneously?
I have Atom netbook on 8Mbps ADSL, with this MD setting: 1 active download, max 10 threads per download, min thread size 300Kbytes for huge files and 5 active downloads, max 10 threads per download, min thread size 300Kbytes for small files (typically hundreds files per 150Kbytes).
|Jiri Sedlacek||04/30/2009 12:41 pm|
|I am sorry for duplicity, I think that my message get lost, because it didn''t appeared here. I must write it again from scratch from my memory, because I haven''t copy of my post.|
|Alexander||05/01/2009 06:43 am|
I forwarded your message to the Mass Downloader developer, he will reply you.
|Kara||06/28/2009 04:07 pm|
|> Jiri Sedlacek,
> No problem.
> I forwarded your message to the Mass Downloader developer, he will reply you.
> Best regards,
> Alexander Bednyakov
> MP Staff
Is there any sort of progress status on this issue? It has been been a major downside to using MD since I first started several years back.
|Alexander||06/29/2009 08:07 am|
Thank you for writing us.
We do not forgot about this problem. The developer will work on this right after we release the first beta of Portable Download Manager (based on Mass Downloader.)