OT: Party's memory leak

[razen_cain]

Scotch, for what it's worth, I've been doing the exact same thing since the new install of party with no noticable ill effects.

[trdi]

Party doesn't have a memory leak. I'm using a RAM manager and I'm sure there is no leak. However, it does start going slower most of the times.But it's not because there would be a memory leak, RAM is not the problem.

[obsidian]

I'll have 10 tables open on my computer for many hours straight and the amount of ram I am using doesn't increase much at all. I doubt this is a memory leak. I have a faster than average computer though so that may make a difference. This is most likely just a software ineffiency that I don't notice. I have 2GB ram and a dual core 2.4GHz AMD64 cpu.

[mongeron]

[ QUOTE ]
Party doesn't have a memory leak. I'm using a RAM manager and I'm sure there is no leak. However, it does start going slower most of the times.But it's not because there would be a memory leak, RAM is not the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a leak, but it is not exactly memory leak. I have watched PartyPoker resources with Sysinternals.com Process Explorer, and it clearly shows that GDI resources are not freed after usage.

Anyway, I'm tired fighting with PartyPoker, so I won't try to get them to understand the problem.

- mongeron

[bambi]

Here is what i have been able to figure out.

If you open Task Manager (I have Windows XP)watch how much memory usage partygaming.exe uses, i can actually see it rising, it starts off at around 25000K and slowly keeps building, i have watched it build to over 500 000K which is when it is about unplayable.

Not much will help to fix this, It seems to happen alot worse when you resize the tables, before i play i close all applications that are not needed, and once you open Party right click and set priority to HIGH.

Once party starts to slow down bad, click on the partygaming.exe in the processes, hit end process, and then re start party, i have no idea if this will have any long term affects so dont blame me if something goes wrong, however this is what i have been doing for the last few weeks, and whilst it isnt a complete fix, it does help in the short term.

Now all we have to do is get party to believe us....

[george w]

[ QUOTE ]
Like most of the posters here, I've been dealing with this problem by periodically closing and re-opening Party. Of course, it's very annoying to wait for the blinds on ten tables and then wait for ten seats to open up again, so . . . I started thinking about "crashing" Party instead. If I bring up Windows Task Manager and select "End Task", Party will prompt me to stand up from my tables; but if I ignore that prompt, the "Not Responding" error message comes up and allows me to close and re-open Party without leaving my tables. I cannot imagine this being good for my computer though, so I'm wondering what more knowledgeable posters think about this quick fix. What effects will it have on my computer, and would I be able to repair any damage by doing things like uninstalling/reinstalling Party, running the defragmenter or system cleanup, etc?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

omg, your computer might catch on fire if you do this too much. beware!

seriously though, this isn't going to hurt anything.

[chisness]

This problem is absolutely awful and makes it terrible play

[dcasper70]

I have had none of the issues you all have in this thread.

But I do have MemTurbo running constantly in the background and set to recover ram automatically when the available amount falls to 25%.

You might want to look into this and/or any other ram management software.

[BluffTHIS!]

casper,

I don't have that program, but have tried other such memory management utilities. I don't think it will work for most because it can only recover RAM once a program has released it. The problem is that with every table you open, every list you view, party allocates memory to that and then doesn't release it in general or to its own use, after you have closed that table or quit viewing a list of tables, etc. And the effect is apparently more pronounced for anyone with older systems not running XP than for XP users with big systems, but it still happens even with XP's better memory handling compared to older OS's.

The simple fact is party definitely knows about this and is lying about not knowing. Their programmers either don't want to implement better memory handling, or lack the expertise to do so. And as always, they care much less about us power users on 2+2 than they do about other customers.

[sawseech]

i notice this mostly with sngs
i basically toggle filters nonstop and i think i'd dropping 30k in memory every time i do