132 needs more CPU than 116

[tiptronic]

Although not really aggressive, BTSync 132 needs more CPU power when idle, than 116 did.

On my MacBookPro (late 2008), 10.8.3, 8GB RAM it takes approx. 0.6-1.2% CPU (12 Threads) when idle. The 116 version took 0.02-0.06%...

This is just an observation... I don't know if this is informative for anyone, but anyway...

andy

[Jero]

i had a btsync running (132) on a Intel® Pentium® CPU P6000 @ 1.87GHz with freebsd (pfsense) and it takes 20-24% CPU when idle, way too much for a firewall

Compared to my NAS Intel® Core2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80GHz also freebsd (freenas) it takes 2 - 6% when idle

On my windows machines (core i5) it takes 0.4 - 1%

[GreatMarko]

There is a correlation (on all platforms) between the amount of CPU usage vs the total amount of files being monitored/indexed by BitTorrent Sync - i.e. the more files you've added the BitTorrent Sync, the higher the CPU usage (even when apparently "idle" - as BitTorrent Sync is still "monitoring" files, even if it isn't transferring any)

So, do you have the same number of files in BitTorrent Sync in 1.0.132 as you did in 1.0.116, or have you added more since you were using 1.0.116? - if so, this will be why you're seeing higher CPU usage

Remember that Sync is still an alpha, I'm sure the devs will be working on optimizing CPU/memory usage before a "stable" release

[tiptronic]

@GreatMarko: I am aware this is an alpha, that's why I didn't change anything on the repository. That means: same amount of files, same amount of peers... Nothing changed in this regard.

I just wanted to make the increase in CPU load visible.