Help and Support
Ask a question, report a problem, request a feature...
<<  Back To Forum

Tixati writes too much data to a HDD (SSD)

by dr_rimzi on 2016/02/25 08:35:42 PM    
I noticed that Tixati writes a whole lot of data to its internal files (core2.dat and other .dat files in (..\App Data\Roaming\tixati)).
Over the course of several hours it has written over 10 GB of data to these files.

My SSD now has over 17 TB written to it, partially because of Tixati (and Google Chrome), over 1,5 years of using it.

I have a few hundred torrents in a Seeding / Standby seed mode, and I haven't downloaded anything in these hours (just seeding).

So it appears that tens of GBs are written daily just to update the ratio/uploaded/peer data info?

It's a problem for those of us with SSDs. Is it a bug, or can it be somehow fixed in Tixati settings?
by Guest on 2016/02/26 01:59:21 AM    
Can you tell me what program you are using to monitor write data to the Tixati program directory to make these claims? I would like to know.
by Guest on 2016/02/26 03:09:22 PM    
with process explorer look at I/O graph (overall or per process)
by dr_rimzi on 2016/02/26 03:14:08 PM    
I use SysInternals Process Explorer to know the written I/O byte sum and Windows Resource Monitor to monitor tixati.exe process to know which files are being written to.

If there is a better tool to monitor which process writes how much to which file, I'd be happy to check it too.
by Guest on 2016/02/27 04:26:53 AM    
Here is my Sysinternals screenshot, and it's quite shocking:

https://i.imgur.com/sH9VoIr.png
by dr_rimzi on 2016/02/27 04:31:33 PM    
I think you jest, but at the moment of my said experiment Tixati wasn't downloading anything.
by Guest on 2016/02/27 05:03:39 PM    
Via Sysinternals, I have found an average of 25mb/hour of disc write by Tixati. I ran this for about 2 days and this was without downloading any data, simply seeding/running.

So, doing the math, that's an average of about 600mb of data write every 24 hours. Wow.
by Guest on 2016/02/29 02:46:15 PM    
https://i.imgur.com/sH9VoIr.png

Screenshot shows "I/O write bytes" and *not* "Disk Write bytes".

I think it's a little different, or not??
by Guest on 2016/02/29 09:19:58 PM    
I think it depends on count of torrents being seeded.
by dr_rimzi on 2016/03/02 01:51:31 PM    
I have turned off Tixati for a day, leaving everything else as is and the amount of SSD disk writes (monitored by SSDLife Pro) decreased by
~20 GB.

Something is really NOT OK.
by Guest on 2016/03/03 10:52:06 PM    
Via Sysinternals, I have found an average of 25mb/hour of disc write by Tixati. I ran this for about 2 days and this was without downloading any data, simply seeding/running.

So, doing the math, that's an average of about 600mb of data write every 24 hours. Wow.

This is my post and I want to thank you, dr_rimzi, for starting this thread and alerting me about this. This is nothing short of shocking, to say the least.

I used to run Tixati 24hr/6 days a week for a very long time (seeding) and I can now only imagine how many gigabytes of useless SSD writes there has been. I now only use Tixati to convert magnet hashes to torrent files, as I've returned to my other favorite torrent client (which of course I have monitored for disc writes while seeding/idle, and there is less than 1(one)MB(megabyte) per 24 hour period.)
by Guest on 2016/03/05 12:07:28 AM    
not to belittle this issue, as these are really unnecessary writes and should be eliminated soon as possible

BUT, today's SSDs can take writes above 1000 TB with ease ... so don't panic, surely it can take it until fix
by dr_rimzi on 2016/03/05 12:08:10 AM    
500 torrents on standby seed mode, 50-60 on active seed. More than 20 GB written by tixati to SSD. Not a laughing matter.

You can laugh all you want, but this is my (and yours, everyone's) SSD taking a hit for useless writes that Tixati performs. I'm still waiting for a proper developer to respond, and not random trolls.
by Guest on 2016/03/05 06:34:01 AM    
may you please provide statistics by files from "resource monitor" (start -> run -> "resmon" -> enter). what is main reson? temporaty files or core.dat updates?

and if you are so concerned about amount of data written, you may
1) place "incomplete pieces" folder on normal disk
2) run tixati from ramdisk with copy back to ssd on shutdown (if you can afford SSD then you certanly can afford more RAM). you may use some symbolic links (mklink.exe) to direct specific files or folders to another drive
3) kindly ask devs to add option of adjustable interval between disk flush of core.dat (every XXX minutes or "on shutdown")
by Guest on 2016/03/05 01:34:30 PM    
I'm afraid Resource Monitor is not a tool for collecting such statistics, as it displays only current Write speed. Does anyone know how to collect such data over a period of time per file?
by dr_rimzi on 2016/03/05 01:48:29 PM    

Bursts of such writes determine that most of that data goes into core2.dat file.
by BMu33 on 2016/03/05 02:24:10 PM    
As guest mentioned, you can work-around this by running tixati portable edition from a spinning disk. Use the settings import/export feature to keep all of your setting when you switch.
by SSTREGG on 2016/03/06 05:08:49 PM    
You can collect data using Sysinternals Process Monitor.

Set filter to:
1. Process is tixati.exe
2. Operation is WriteFile
3. Path begins with _your_tixati_user_profile_folder_ (example: X:\Users\UserName\AppData\Roaming\tixati)

On my machine, in summary for 20 minutes, were writed ~43 mb of data to core2.dat.temp.

Summary: http://i.imgur.com/pklELuF.png

You can avoid it by using a portable edition (as said above), or create symlink to tixati user profile folder in a different place on your HDD. But I think it is too much, especially when tixati is running 24/7 :(
by dr_rimzi on 2016/03/07 06:39:03 PM    
I could only run Tixati for about an hour, maybe even less, because it crashed when Process Monitor was running.
But the data I managed to collect is very interesting:

http://i.imgur.com/qMq1gaJ.png
by Guest on 2017/06/20 09:08:30 AM    
Was this fixed in newer versions or should I use the portable version?




This web site is powered by Super Simple Server