SABnzbd Forums

Ok this problem has only cropped up recently. I've started getting errors where SABnzbd will just shut itself down for no reason. When I check the Event Viewer I see this error.

"Faulting application SABnzbd.exe, version 0.4.6.0, time stamp 0x48554bd0, faulting module _yenc.pyd, version 0.0.0.0, time stamp 0x44ddea19, exception code 0xc0000005, fault offset 0x000019e7, process id 0x5b8, application start time 0x01c97aa0db213aa0."

Any ideas?

Also, I've noticed SABnzbd slows down my system considerably when it is unpacking and downloading at the same time. Is this usual? My system is fairly high spec but I have a feeling it has something to do with the fact that my OS drive is an SSD. Are there known issues with SABnzbd and SSD Drives?

I don't share your experience. I often run SABnzbd on a Vista64 system.
The module _yenc.pyd is a black box for us.
I'll keep an eye open for this problem.

Unpacking is a handled by the external utility, which (for obvious reasons)
is very disk-intensive.
This issue is not related to SABnzbd itself.
Windows systems are simply very bad at scheduling access to the disk.
A process that manages to saturate the disk-channel (in this case unrar)
manages to throttle any other process that needs the disk (this includes SABnzbd itself).
BTW: do you have a set a memory cache for SABnzbd (Config->General)?
A large enough memory cache means that SABnzbd doesn't need the hard disk so much.

shypike wrote:BTW: do you have a set a memory cache for SABnzbd (Config->General)?
A large enough memory cache means that SABnzbd doesn't need the hard disk so much.

I have the Article Cache Limit set to "-1" as I was told this allows SABnzbd use as much ram as it wants. I have 8GB's of RAM so it shouldn't be a problem. To reduce the number of read/writes on the SSD I've also moved the SABnzbd cache folder onto a RAMdisk.

I've done all this because of this system slowdown when downloading. It appeared to ease up for a while but in the last day or so its gotten worse, with SABnzbd now crashing altogether.

I haven't set any of the par2.exe parameters. I have a E8500 dualcore, should I set it to "-t+"? Is it better or worse for my disk using this parameter over "-t0"

Very odd behavior.
My E8400 has no problem whatsoever and I get up to 10.000KBytes/sec (fiber  ) download speeds,
while I have a CPU load of less than 30% (higher during par2 of course).

Setting par2 =t+ isn't a good idea. It means it will use multi-core verification too, which
will only make life more difficult for the hard disk with no real gain.
The -t0 is probably the best setting, but it will load 2 CPU's full and saturate the diskchannel.
-t- will take more time, but will at least keep one CPU free (and lighter on the disk)
No parameters equals -t+, which is the worst setting.

I realize this is not an answer to your crash problems.
It does have all the signs of an intermittent problem possibly related to hardware problems.
However, I never do really long download sessions on the Vista64 box (limited to 1 hour).
How long in time and/or amount of GigaBytes does it take before it crashes?

Is that 10MB/s not Mb/s? That's crazy I'm only on 20Mb/s (2.5MB/s)

It might have something to do with the fact that diskeeper was scheduled to defragment the drive last night while I was downloading. The error happened about 4 hours into the download. But when I started it again this morning it crashed again after only another hour.

Anyway, I've set the par2 to -t0, I've also enabled this option "Pause Downloads During Post-processing" to see if it has any effect.

Also, is the best option for the Article Cache Limit to leave it -1? Should I specify a maximum value?

-1 is OK, it won't use more memory than two full files (so about 100M).

One thing more you can try is to rename or remove the _yenc.pyd file:
c:\program files\SABnzbd\lib\_yenc.pyd

When you do that SABnzbd will no longer use this module but will use its
own YENC decoder. This will make it a bit slower, but you probably won't
notice it on your system.

Other than that, I don't have a clue what could be the problem.
As for the speed: SABnzbd isn't a speed king, but even on my lowly
Pentium III Linux server I get 2.5MByte/sec.

Yes, I do get 10MByte/sec on my 100Mbit/sec glass-fiber connection
with the fairy modest Vista64 box.

Last question: no overambitious virus scanner or software firewall that interferes?