Title says it all. I wanted to be able to keep using WhatPulse 1.2.1 on my Mac for an indefinite amount of time, but I am concerned in case the WhatPulse server stops accepting pulses from the old version of the client software. Will this ever happen?
Out of curiosity, why don’t you want a newer version?
Eventually, but I’m not sure when yet.
The new version has a bloated interface, higher memory footprint, crashes all the time, and doesn’t offer me much in return. The one good thing about the new version is that it tracks bandwidth, and even that doesn’t work half of the time.
I see you haven’t tried the latest ones yet, as the memory footprint is about the same as the old OS X client and the crashes have been resolved.
In any case, they will be discontinued at a point of time. There will be a announcement long before.
[quote=“smitmartijn, post:5, topic:12870”]
I see you haven’t tried the latest ones yet, as the memory footprint is about the same as the old OS X client and the crashes have been resolved.[/quote]
You were saying?
That’s not normal, this is normal:
Try disabling network stats, as that’s the only third party hook.
Aw, really? If that’s the only solution, then I will seriously consider getting a new account and downgrading to 1.2.1.
Could you try the suggestion first, and see wether or not that helps? It’ll confirm wether or not it’s network that’s causing the high memory usage.
…but 1.2.1 doesn’t have network stats either, so disabling them isn’t a loss.
He voiced his reasoning for going to 1.X here (in bold).
Holy shit, it just keeps growing!
At your advice I have disabled the network statistics, but the RAM usage hasn’t changed. I didn’t restart the process because I suspect that would reduce the RAM usage regardless. I’m going to keep using it with the network stats switched off and see if it gets bigger.
Restarting the process will reduce the RAM usage regardless, yes, but if disabling network stats didn’t make a difference, it should start leaking again. If it doesn’t, then that likely solved the issue. If it does, then it’s clearly an issue with WhatPulse itself, not the third-party network tracer, and smitmartijn can look at a fix.
I’d recommend keeping it open for now, see if it keeps ballooning, then after a day or two (or straight away, if it’s clearly climbing steadily), restarting the process and monitoring it again.
Except he stated that going back to 1.X would still be preferable if disabling network stats fixed those problems.
In the last 20 minutes, both the real memory and virtual memory usage have increased by a few megs. Yet the network stats are turned off. I think that’s pretty conclusive, yes?
A couple of megabytes is pretty natural variance, but if it keeps continuing, then yeah, that’s pretty conclusive. Restart the process and see if it occurs again.
It was 562 before I left the house today. And now it’s grown to 587 during a train journey with the wi-fi off.
This thing is a fucking tumour!
Oh, and it’s constantly using a few percent of my CPU. Right now it’s hovering just under 3%, but it was 5% earlier. This can not be good for my battery. As you can see, it has racked up an hour and 14 minutes of CPU time in just over 98 hours of uptime, which means an average CPU usage of 1.25%.
Is there any way to fix this? Please?
1.25% CPU usage is hardly an exceptional amount on a laptop. That’s definitely growing, so yeah, give it a restart, and see if that stops it.
Is there a reason for you to be acting immaturely about this?
Have you restarted the client since disabling network statistics? If not, do it. You may or may not notice a difference. Let us know the results.
Or, just drop back to 1.X and be done with it.
Not yet. I’m going to leave it overnight and see how high the memory usage gets. I’d like to see it get to over a gigabyte. I also disabled the uptime and input tracking statistics, so WhatPulse is basically a brick at the moment, and yet its RAM usage continues to rise.
Forgive me if I have a sense of humour. 
Back in 2.0b4 it got up to 1.24GB on my Windows 8 machine, see if you can beat that!
(haven’t seen it go above a much more reasonable 60MB or so since, but then again, I don’t have any OS X devices)