Gnotella CPU, Resource, & Memory Hog

Subversive · #1 (**permalink**) August 17th, 2000

<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#ffffff">

Hello,

I just installed Gnotella 0.73. I have Windows 98 (v4.10.1998) with all the updates, a 350 MHZ
CPU, 192 MB memory, and 1 GB free on my C: drive. I have not had any problems with crashes
or errors. There is a major problem with the installation program replacing newer system
files with older ones. Please see my other post for more details.

I <a href="http://forums.gnutellanews.com/Forum6/HTML/000051.html">read another thread here about CPU usage</a> and Gnotella does seem to use a lot of CPU
bandwidth. But Gnotella uses more than just too much CPU power. After a fresh boot, I loaded
Norton System Doctor. This gives me all my system stats. I have created a table below:

Table GDI Resource, USER Resource, and CPU Bandwidth Usage

2 Outgoing, 2 Incoming, Monitor of Searches Off
<table border cellpadding=5 width="87%">
<tr valign="top"><td width="43%"></td>
<td width="18%">GDI Free</td>
<td width="18%">USER Free</td>
<td width="18%">CPU Usage</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>Fresh Boot</td>
<td>99%</td>
<td>94%</td>
<td>0%</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>MS Dialer to 'Net</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>0</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>Gnotella Loaded</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>82</td>
<td>59%</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>...Browser, ETC... Loaded</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>59%</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>Word Processor Loaded</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>59%</td></tr></table>

As you can see, Gnotella uses 9% GDI Resources, 10% USER Resources, and 59% CPU
bandwidth. I have been using my word processor for 3 years and it has always been the resource
hog king, until now. It uses 8% GDI & 8% USER. I don't really mind Gnotella using that much
GDI and USER. I can deal with it. It only means I can't run as many apps at one time and
eventually have to reboot to free them up.

The 59% CPU is another matter. Even with my 350 MHZ, it is using 59% and this needs to be
cut down. <a href="http://forums.gnutellanews.com/Forum6/HTML/000051.html">Someone also mentioned memory usage</a>:

Table for Physical Memory and Swap File Usage
<table border cellpadding=5 width="90%">
<tr valign="top"><td width="36%">Gnotella Started</td>
<td width="34%">Physical Memory Free (K)</td>
<td width="28%">Swap File Usage (K)</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>Begin of Tracking Memory</td>
<td>106,284</td>
<td>67,472</td></tr>
<tr valign="top"><td>After 30 Minutes</td>
<td>105,012</td>
<td>68,524</td></tr></table>

For 30 Minutes, I did not use the computer and simply allowed Gnotella to work. After this
time, my free physical memory shrank by 1,272 K bytes and my Swap file grew by 1,052 K
bytes. Assuming this continues while Gnotella is running, you must have a huge amount of
memory free, otherwise you will not be able to leave it running continuously. This defeats the
purpose of Gnotella, since it is meant to serve as a node in an enormous network. NOTE: I am
still writing this review and after 1 hour 35 minutes of Gnotella usage, my CPU usage is
now 99%.

Apparently, what is happening is Gnotella is keeping all of the searches it encounters from
the other nodes in memory. It is then reparsing every single one of them to compare them
with the new ones, probably to guard against spam attacks. This is the only explanation I can
come up with. This part of Gnotella must be rewritten to handle stored searches and
comparisons better. Guarding against spam attacks and filtering is good, but maybe there should
be an option to turn this feature off. Users should have the option to simply evaluate the
incoming searches, determine if anything is relevant, pass them along, then release them from
memory.

Finally, there should be an option that when a download takes place, Gnotella goes off the
Gnutella network until it's finished. This way, all available bandwidth is available for it. Using
a 56K modem is already slow. If you're on the network, it's even slower. Say you find a 6 MB
MP3. Without the network, it will take 15 minutes to DL. With it, it would probably take at
least 20. The uploader may not want to sit around that long and may shutdown.

VB is not the best language to write a program with. Every time I encounter one in VB, it is
always slow and hoggish. C++ seems to be the better language. I could not keep Gnotella in
memory because it was just eating up all my memory and slowing my computer down to a crawl.
If I left it running overnight, I would probably have to hit the reset button to reboot. After I
shutdown Gnotella, my CPU usage went to 0% but my other resources did not seem to free up.

I like the Gnutella concept. I believe it will play an important role in the future. I am going to
<a href="http://gnutella.wego.com/go/wego.pages.page?groupId=116705&view=page&pageId=11 7731&folderId=117728&panelId=119597&action=view">d ownload another client</a> and try it. This time it will be written in MFC (C++). Hopefully it
won't eat as many resources. To Shaun Sidwall, all Gnotella needs is a little work. Overall, it's
pretty well written. You'll be happy to know I did not encounter a single IPF or illegal access
error. You might want to find someone to rewrite the spam/store searches subroutine in a faster
and more efficient language.

Please see my other thread on improper replacement of system files.

Subversive
</body>
</html>
PS: As you can see, forums don't interpret HTML very well. Bummer.

[This message has been edited by Subversive (edited 08-18-2000).]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
resource fork?	zumbooruk	General Mac Support	0	May 16th, 2002 02:41 PM
Resource Fork ???	Unregistered	General Mac Support	2	May 9th, 2002 04:32 PM
Gnotella Crashing BSOD blackscreen memory leak other program not opening	Unregistered	Gnotella (Windows)	1	November 4th, 2001 11:41 PM
GUI uses too much resource	Unregistered	Support: General	0	September 13th, 2001 12:57 AM
Gnotella memory usage	onty	Gnotella (Windows)	1	July 11th, 2000 03:49 AM