Bug 667295

Summary:	100% CPU usage
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Caius Chance <K9>
Component:	deluge	Assignee:	Rahul Sundaram <metherid>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	14	CC:	K9, peter, sanjay.ankur
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-03-16 15:49:40 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Caius Chance 2011-01-05 06:12:23 UTC

Description of problem:
There is a 100% CPU usage on deluge. This bug has been fixed by upstream in version 1.3.1. [1]

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.3.0

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run deluge and start download.
2. Check with command "top".
3. See the CPU usage on top.
  
Actual results:
CPU usage close to 100%.

Expected results:
Far below that. 95% - 100% is just too high.

Additional info:
[1] http://dev.deluge-torrent.org/wiki/ChangeLog

Comment 1 Caius Chance 2011-01-05 10:31:35 UTC

I built my rpm from 1.3.1 and the CPU usage is still 100%.

According to the changelog of upstream only deluge-web was fixed.

I am creating bug report at upstream tracker now.

Comment 2 Caius Chance 2011-01-05 10:41:41 UTC

Can you create the bug report at upstream please? I am not able to because the tracker requires log-in. Thanks.

Comment 3 Caius Chance 2011-01-22 06:10:43 UTC

The method mentioned in this link reduce the severity of the problem but I guess a solution is still needed: http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/alternative-to-200-lines-kernel-patch.html

Comment 4 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2011-03-16 08:14:02 UTC

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 5 Rahul Sundaram 2011-03-16 15:49:40 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 608438 ***