Redundant cycle.

Hi,

sorry for my bad english.

I use frd a lot, and i noticed (looking the shell in wich i launched the java) that there are lots of useless actions.

When i put lots of links (and it happen, like 3000) i can't read the output in the shell and the program take 100% of the cpu.

It doesn't happen if I use less files in the queue....

I think that the problem exist because the status of the downloads (even of the last files, that will be downloaded day after) are updated continuosly.

So, if it's difficoult to fix this problem, i suggest to make a status where files are not checked (and so they don't take CPU). When 10 downloads finish 10 files are defreezed (it could be that files are picked up from a file).

Is it possible to automatically delete from the list file completely downloaded?

Thanks vity&Team!!

It's because the list is saved to a file every 10 seconds (as otherwise it may be lost due to improper closing of the program). FRD isn't designed to handle thousands of links.

> Is it possible to automatically delete from the list file completely downloaded?
Options > Preferences > General tab > set "Remove completed downloads" to "Immediately"

can't I change that time?

I have a 1300Mhz and it's not so usable..

PS: i can't see General tab in settings (i'm using 0.85 alpha2)

PPS: Which not essential processes uses lots of cpu? If i increse the time to 30 s will it works better?

There are some deletable feature? And any increseable time?

the CPU is taken by GUI not by saving file

-------------------------------------

does the program work headless?

And why with lots of files it works worse?

and there are a way to impede that files exit from the download queue (if the proxy gives an error the file become red and the program try to download anoter file using the same proxy. So if I have a bad proxy in my list it stops all my queue and i must select all and click to resume (after i deleted the bad proxy))

> And why with lots of files it works worse?
because there are filters, sorting your 3000 links every second + painting the data

-------------------------------------

Vity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > And why with lots of files it works worse?
> because there are filters, sorting your 3000 links
> every second + painting the data


I selected no filters (do you mean the sorting filter?).

So is there a way to increse the time between two refresh (for example to 10 seconds?)