This project is read-only.

Memory Leak and Bug?


I was using Spaceblock last night and I was attempting to list the contents of one of my buckets. Now I have the bucket divided into a folder type structure, and accessing the other "folders" was successful. But when I tried to access a particular "folder" that has probably 10,000+ objects in it, Spaceblock just sat there with it's loading screen. I left the application open (don't know why), and after about an hour my system began to run dreadfully slow. I opened the Task Manager and lo and behold, Spaceblock was using 1.3 GB of my memory. I have attached screenshots for those interested in helping debug this issue (urls for those that don't trust the dowload). Here are the issues I'd like addressed:
  1. Why can't I get a file listing when a "folder" has a lot of objects in it?
  2. Why is Spaceblock using so much memory?

file attachments


JohnSpurlock wrote Nov 22, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Thanks for providing lots of detail on this - makes things easier. Does this happen all the time with this folder, or just in this case? You are simply trying to list the folder, not uploading/downloading them all?

Right now, I have some folders with ~20000 files, and they take ~30 seconds to load, and not nearly the memory usage. It would be interesting to know how many objects are in your folder.

dotnetallday wrote Nov 25, 2008 at 5:59 AM

I was able to access the folder with the Java project JetS3t. There are 17,234 objects totaling 1.10GB of space. It only happens with that particular "folder", and all the other folders can be browsed normally. Yeah, this basically happens when I try to list the folder contents. I am still able to upload to the folder programatically, as this is the target directory for my web uploads and this function has been confirmed to work.

wrote Aug 19, 2011 at 4:24 PM

dneb wrote Aug 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I had something somewhat similar. I was trying to delete a gigantic bucket (a JungleDisk backup bucket). No idea how many files, but it's huge. It ran all night and in the morning the process was using 7.5GB of memory.

wrote Feb 13, 2013 at 11:58 PM