RE: Memory Leaks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Ian R -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/30/2021 12:57:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I haven't experienced memory leaks (at least of a noticeable nature). Of course, this may depend on the OS you are running on.


Same OS as running old version but all the wonderful new features might be os allocation of system space which is not being cleared with destruction of process.

Old game version could run all day, 8+ turns, no memory leak noticed. New version only running 2 maybe 3 before serious, 5 - 15 sec, memory leak lag.

What OS are you running?


What switches do you have in your short cut?


Archive. Was asking because memory leak much larger and noticeable with upgrade from Original + first patch to 1.26a with no other changes.


I think you should play on windows 10 machine with bigger computing and memory resources. The shortcut switches will resolve the windows 10 compatability. Personally I run the game in a -pxf/pyf forced window; others prefer full screen, so YMMV.

Edit: Is possible that you could play with no switches at all, but worth experimenting.



PaxMondo -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 3:20:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The latest "Beta" is really the latest official patch release, just named a Beta. It has lots of fixes in addition to various improvements, the patch notes should help catalogue those. I put Beta in quotation marks because it's not a Beta in the usual use of the term.

I play PBM, so it's one turn per time running the game. When I played AI, yes I would have to exit and re-load some times. I finally just did so each turn just as a discipline to avoid issues.


To my knowledge, this (memory leaks) has been a long standing issue. It has been my understanding that this is in part due to the origin of the game code and the changes and issues within the operating system(s) by MS. I believe this was confirmed by one of the devs (JWE) who advocated the above solution (reload each turn).

I can say that I also do what witpqs does as well; reload after each and every turn. If I don't, particularly as the war time progresses, memory issues will create cruel outcomes (loss of pool pilots, etc.) The reload isn't much of an issue as a GC turn takes me some time, in particular to load up tracker and then review both tracker and reporter. So doing a reload during this time is unnoticeable to me; just one of many end of turn mechanics.





RangerJoe -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 3:53:42 PM)

A lot of programs have "memory leaks" where the OS does not clean things up and things hang around in memory. Firefox comes to mind. But shut things down and use something like CCleaner to clear things out. Including unnecessary cookies - but if there are chocolate chip ones, grab some milk and enjoy.



RhinoDad -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 7:00:00 PM)

quote:

A lot of programs have "memory leaks" where the OS does not clean things up and things hang around in memory

Or programmer creates but does not destroy, or other causes.

Just noticed a many times increase in memory leak with upgrade 1.26a than was present with 1.00.84e. 1.00.84e nearly imperceivably after many turns (6 -8), 1.26a strongly impacted after 2 maybe 3 turns between reboots.

Was a little concerned that 1.25a to 1.26b might noticeably increase memory leakage. Too large and unpleasant things might happen during turn, one turn till reboot could in theory be insufficient. Figured game is still very new as get more turns and more processes to perform memory leakage per turn will most likely increase; Have 1,200 some turns to process.

With 1.26a adding a memory leakage component, not seen before, wanted to know if 1.26a to 1.26b was large or if others were also affected by memory leaks in 1.26a.

Thank you for your replies on your game memory leakage experience and how often you are needing a reboot. Not to concerned now about 1.26b patch and will just have to see how things go as the turns pile up.



Randy Stead -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 7:00:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The latest "Beta" is really the latest official patch release, just named a Beta. It has lots of fixes in addition to various improvements, the patch notes should help catalogue those. I put Beta in quotation marks because it's not a Beta in the usual use of the term.

I play PBM, so it's one turn per time running the game. When I played AI, yes I would have to exit and re-load some times. I finally just did so each turn just as a discipline to avoid issues.


To my knowledge, this (memory leaks) has been a long standing issue. It has been my understanding that this is in part due to the origin of the game code and the changes and issues within the operating system(s) by MS. I believe this was confirmed by one of the devs (JWE) who advocated the above solution (reload each turn).

I can say that I also do what witpqs does as well; reload after each and every turn. If I don't, particularly as the war time progresses, memory issues will create cruel outcomes (loss of pool pilots, etc.) The reload isn't much of an issue as a GC turn takes me some time, in particular to load up tracker and then review both tracker and reporter. So doing a reload during this time is unnoticeable to me; just one of many end of turn mechanics.





I do that routinely with this game. I save the turn just before exiting and exit the game completely, then restart and load from where I left off. I did try running it for several turns but things started to get sluggish. I will assume this is what is meant by a memory leak, as it's the first time I've heard the term.



RhinoDad -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 7:13:55 PM)

quote:

things started to get sluggish. I will assume this is what is meant by a memory leak, as it's the first time I've heard the term


Yes, that is one of the causes of increasing sluggishness cured by a reboot.

As program runs, do to sloppy programming, Faulty OS, quirks in language, etc.. Computer memory is set aside for a process, when the process is complete the memory set aside is not destroyed and remains set aside. As these unused portions of memory that had been reserved pile up then the usable memory becomes increasingly small. It is like your computer memory is slowly but surely leaking away. It is really just holding more and more aside for in a sense nothing. Kind of like a restaurant holding tables for guests that had left or never showed up. Without clearing (destroying) tables the restaurant has less and less available space to serve.

Your OS when confronted with insufficient memory starts using a portion of your hard drive to store and use as memory. This swapping back and forth from drive to memory slows your computer down and eventually may cause software or computer failures. Memory is much faster than drive; when you add in swap time it is incredibly slower.



Randy Stead -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 7:32:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RhinoDad

quote:

things started to get sluggish. I will assume this is what is meant by a memory leak, as it's the first time I've heard the term


Yes, that is one of the causes of increasing sluggishness cured by a reboot.

As program runs, do to sloppy programming, Faulty OS, quirks in language, etc.. Computer memory is set aside for a process, when the process is complete the memory set aside is not destroyed and remains set aside. As these unused portions of memory that had been reserved pile up then the usable memory becomes increasingly small. It is like your computer memory is slowly but surely leaking away. It is really just holding more and more aside for in a sense nothing. Kind of like a restaurant holding tables for guests that had left or never showed up. Without clearing (destroying) tables the restaurant has less and less available space to serve.

Your OS when confronted with insufficient memory starts using a portion of your hard drive to store and use as memory. This swapping back and forth from drive to memory slows your computer down and eventually may cause software or computer failures. Memory is much faster than drive; when you add in swap time it is incredibly slower.


Great explanation, RD, thanks!

I retrained in one area of IT after a workplace accident, choosing computers since they were a hobby at the time. I got certified in PC repair and Windows Administration. My heart was in the hardware side, loved upgrading and tinkering inside the box. No interest at all in programming or software. People would ask me about spreadsheets and software suites; I'd reply, [&:] I'm a hardware guy.

I know one of the most important aspects to computer performance is the size of cache on the CPU. A CPU checks both cache and RAM before hitting the hard drive. I always check this when comparing machines when shopping or advising someone else. I also know this is one area where companies can economize to put a cheaper product out the door. Recently I was looking at notebook PC specs during a Boxing Day sale. There were what seemed like good offers but then when you look at the specs you think hmm, maybe not. Things like processor cache, memory size and speed, what is the configuration of the memory installed, how many open expansion slots, etc. If you never plan on adding stuff later it does not matter so much, but it really sucks when you wish to double your system memory and the maker has populated all of the memory banks. This means you have to actually reduce what is already there to make room for what you wish to put in.

Another booster of performance is the solid state drive. I've noticed a jump in boot times and game loading time and performance since switching to SSD. Can you believe it, there are still manufacturers putting conventional hard drives with 5400 RPM into notebook computers. Are there still cars made today that have carbs in place of fuel injection?



RangerJoe -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 7:36:14 PM)

I would not mind an SSD for the OS(s) but the Hard Drive for other files.

Which reminds me, I need to get back on the search for a newer computer.



Randy Stead -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 8:01:11 PM)

That is a common setup these days. When the SSDs first entered the market the smaller ones were much cheaper than the larger ones. In time this difference has shrunk.

The setup of SSD as the drive for OS but conventional drives for secondary is a common practice, but I have to wonder if, and how much, performance suffers. Like I said, above, I am not a programmer so this is not gospel [and I would be happy to be corrected] but I would think having game files on a conventional drive would slow the system down a bit as the drive spins and the heads have to seek the data, especially if the conventional drives suffer fragmentation.

It is common, as I said, to have one drive for OS and then one or more for secondary. The idea is for the sake of redundancy so you don't lose all your data if the drive dies. Some people install the OS on C:\ and programs on D:\ but that doubles your exposure as the drives both have to work perfectly. What I do is have as large SSD as I can afford, put the OS and software on it. I then use a live imaging program [Acronis True Image] which constantly backups up C:\ to the secondary drive. It can use various levels of compression so that the backup image is not the same size as your C:\ drive. There is also the option to backup to an online server or a networked drive or server at home. I also have a portable hard drive bay into which I can insert a hard disk for backups of too-important-to-lose files [wedding photos, recipes, photos, documents, etc.]

These days it is so easy to keep data safe, as long as you make the effort. My ideal setup [not yet implemented] is a home file server in a data room, with all of the family computers set to automatically backup to a redundant disk array in the server. I'm the only one in my family interested in computers anywhere beyond their immediate use. This means I have to maintain them, protect them, and once in a while, pay for them.



RangerJoe -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 8:13:47 PM)

That does sound nice but since I hope to do things that may entail a lot of writing and rewrites, I feel that the Hard Drive for the data storage would be better. Plus, it is simpler to blow away Windows and reinstall. I also want a flavor of Linux as well as older versions of Windows as well which can also be done virtually.

The hard disks are also easier to remove and bring someplace else but I want it build in and not have to lug an separate hard drive with the attendant wires to go along with the DVD player - preferably internal there as well.

I actually put the computer on my chest and use it there so I don't want unnecessary wires trapping me and then having those wired chewed by domestic felines - no how pretty they are!



RhinoDad -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 8:54:40 PM)

quote:

but I have to wonder if, and how much, performance suffers. Like I said, above, I am not a programmer so this is not gospel [and I would be happy to be corrected] but I would think having game files on a conventional drive would slow the system down a bit as the drive spins and the heads have to seek the data, especially if the conventional drives suffer fragmentation

SSD drives are faster but they are limited in the number of times you can write to them. There is a set number after which they will fail. A hard drive has no theoretical life, can read and write unlimited times. But they only last about 10 years. So a compromise of speed where software and os on ssd; mostly read not much write; and Hard Drive for data, game saves, etc. will make the system last much longer and unless your software is constantly reading and writing data then will not notice large degradation in speed. Many do not want to trash out their computer drive because they did a lot a data writing.

Which is why it is generally a bad thing to defrag a SSD as you are using up a set number of writes.

So two drives each utilizing each components strengths. SSD where files are read for quick reads, Hard Drives for writing and unwriting large amounts of data for drive lifespan.



Randy Stead -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 9:37:18 PM)

That is a good post, Rhino. I'd like to chat about this some day but right now I am off to get in another few turns.



PaxMondo -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 11:43:29 PM)

I love my SSD. Op sys plus important programs (like WITP-AE) are on the SSD. Trivial BS and everything else on the HDD.

SSD is almost as fast as RAM, so the speed is just very, very nice.



Ian R -> RE: Memory Leaks (1/31/2021 11:59:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Randy Stead
I've noticed a jump in boot times and game loading time and performance since switching to SSD. Can you believe it, there are still manufacturers putting conventional hard drives with 5400 RPM into notebook computers.


Yes - I bought a new Lenovo desktop last year, and after some windows updates it starting having problems. My tech guy binned 5400 RPM drive it cam with, and replaced it with 1 TB Samsung SSD. Now I can leave AE running in a window for days at a time without any clag-ups.



Reg -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/1/2021 8:08:43 PM)


I'm surprised the term Memory Fragmentation has not come up in this conversation as it is a far more likely candidate. AE runs an older engine which does not take full advantage of Windows built in memory management functions which quietly defrag in the background. It also hasn't been helped by players with huge monitors displaying bigger areas of the map which require a large chunk of contiguous memory.

It is not a case of how much memory you have (modern PCs have plenty) but the largest single block of unallocated memory.

My recollection is that this has been discussed many times over the years.




Maallon -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/2/2021 12:20:44 PM)

Regarding SSDs, they actually last longer when most people anticipate. The Knowledge base on this topic is mostly kind of old.

I would like to show this on an example for a new SSD of the time, taking the: Samsung 870 EVO SATA 2.5" SSD 250GB
The lifespan of an SSD is stated under the value of estimated Terrabytes Written (TBW), meaning that the Manufacturer guarantees that the SSD will work as long as this amount of Terrabytes were not written on the SSD. In practice most SSD actually last longer, but for the sake of the example and lack of Data, I will concentrate on the value of TBW.
The SSD 870 EVO has, according to Samsung, an estimated maximum TBW of 150TB.
So lets assume the SSD has lasted 10 years this would mean that you would have written (150*1000GB)/10Years/365Days = 41GB per day on average. This would be roughly 1/5 of the entire capacity of the SSD.
Needles to say that most people in consumer PCs probably won't write 41GB per day even on average.

What I wanted to demonstrate is that modern SSDs actually last for a very long time, I would even dare to say that they can last longer than most HDDs nowadays.
The big weakness of SSDs is that it is rarely possible to recover lost Data if the SSD breaks, while the Recovery of Data on HDD is possible in most cases.
So if you have very sensible Data that you just cannot afford to loose, a HDD can be a safer alternative. (It would also be definitely safer to make copies of the Data on different mediums)
But if you plan on only playing games, I would personally suggest not to go for the increasing effort and cost of saving Save Files or Screenshots on a separate HDD and stuff like that and just get an SSD with an appropriate size. It will likely last you for a decade and with appropriate Software you can get a fair warning if the Lifetime of your SSD is starting to get reached and you should get a new one.



RhinoDad -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/2/2021 4:10:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maallon

Regarding SSDs, they actually last longer when most people anticipate. The Knowledge base on this topic is mostly kind of old.

I would like to show this on an example for a new SSD of the time, taking the: Samsung 870 EVO SATA 2.5" SSD 250GB
The lifespan of an SSD is stated under the value of estimated Terrabytes Written (TBW), meaning that the Manufacturer guarantees that the SSD will work as long as this amount of Terrabytes were not written on the SSD. In practice most SSD actually last longer, but for the sake of the example and lack of Data, I will concentrate on the value of TBW.
The SSD 870 EVO has, according to Samsung, an estimated maximum TBW of 150TB.
So lets assume the SSD has lasted 10 years this would mean that you would have written (150*1000GB)/10Years/365Days = 41GB per day on average. This would be roughly 1/5 of the entire capacity of the SSD.
Needles to say that most people in consumer PCs probably won't write 41GB per day even on average.

What I wanted to demonstrate is that modern SSDs actually last for a very long time, I would even dare to say that they can last longer than most HDDs nowadays.
The big weakness of SSDs is that it is rarely possible to recover lost Data if the SSD breaks, while the Recovery of Data on HDD is possible in most cases.
So if you have very sensible Data that you just cannot afford to loose, a HDD can be a safer alternative. (It would also be definitely safer to make copies of the Data on different mediums)
But if you plan on only playing games, I would personally suggest not to go for the increasing effort and cost of saving Save Files or Screenshots on a separate HDD and stuff like that and just get an SSD with an appropriate size. It will likely last you for a decade and with appropriate Software you can get a fair warning if the Lifetime of your SSD is starting to get reached and you should get a new one.

Would agree. Far as I know of no one has suggested otherwise in fact I think they are by and large also in agreement. But the information earlier is why current PCs are generally built with SSD and Hard Drive.

Less expensive for data storage size and older SSD did not last as long as they do today and the price of SSD keeps declining. Also SSD have a much higher uncorrectable error rate than Hard Drives; this should not be much of a problem but small chance it could create hiccups or worse. Minimized in multi drive arrays but PCs do not tend to have these.

Combined with technology improvements and real world testing has made SSD expected life longer. But the SSD is still constrained by the amount of data that is Erased and written (P/E) which is related but vary different from what the user is writing to the drive. The drive manufacturer having to guess at the actual P/E is why SSD often last longer than stated; it all depends on the data being changed. For warranty better to be safe than sorry. There is also time which also degrades SSD. But you are looking as you stated about 10 years for SSD unless too small a drive was used.

So far SSD technology has mainly worked to evenly spread the wear and set aside replacement storage within the SSD.

Seeing a need, Specs, Designing, testing, offering and building, etc. PCs are not done on the fly. This is a process that takes many months. The tech design of the PC coming out is going to be older than what is currently available. Builders will make what they think people want to buy, if buyers want to save some brass then that is what will be built and offered, and when they are freshly available to purchase the tech will be several months old at best. 1/2 a year is a long time for a P/C with an expected life of 3-5 years, about 12% of its expected life.

As the cost for a given amount of storage decreases in SSDs and tech makes them longer lasting then you will probably see more and larger SSD drives available in PCs. But total replacement is probably a few years off.



Maallon -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/2/2021 9:37:15 PM)

After rereading I seem to misunderstood some of the posts, sorry I was kinda of tired as I wrote my post. [:)]

I would also agree that the main factor why SSDs haven't taken over the market on Consumer PCs is that they are still quite a bit more expensive then HDDs.
So most people use them run to the OS and Applications and not to store data in particular.
But technically SSDs are at a state that you also could use them for Data Storage, even if you write and rewrite a lot on it, they are not as fragile as they used to be.



Nomad -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/2/2021 10:09:55 PM)

I use a 500GB PCIe SSD for Windows and general apps. I use a 1TB PCIe SSD for my games. I also have a 1TB Hard disk for storage.



Alpha77 -> RE: Memory Leaks (2/6/2021 3:16:09 AM)

If you mean a unnerving delay from a click to action then I see that too. Eg. click on a base it takes severall seconds or build a TF and exit it takes long.

But that only happens in a game as Allies vs. the AI. My PBM as IJ vs Allied does not have the problem and it is the same scen and the same version on the same computer and OS (Win7 64bit)...so no HW issue as the PBM runs fine. Perhaps it is an issue with the AI (scripts) perhaps which do not run in PBMs.

..and yes, the 1st turn loaded runs smooth but then it gets slow...[:o]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.703125