8 replies to this topic

[LennStar]

So I wanted to have a look at the new map.

The download was 1.XXGB. I had 8.XXGB free disk space.
After downloading the patcher patched - and stopped with "insufficient disk space".
So I moved a few GB to the win partition and started again.
And the patcher started to download the install base - 7GB while there was all data still in the MWO directory!!

Of course that is again more space then is free if you include de-packing. So I had to delete the 11GB data in the Game folder (old data patch data) and now have to wait the whole night for the install base to download because its quite slow - a lot slower then the patch.

Very annoying patch logic error. (And avoidable stress on my SSD.)


EDIT: For those that are interested, it took about 24GB to install the game. This patch is I guess about 12GB

Edited by LennStar, 07 July 2015 - 11:24 PM.

[Ironwithin]

They packed the game up in very few, very big archives so the patcher needs enough space to handle those, it's a little unfortunate ...

Edited by Ironwithin, 07 July 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[LennStar]

Ironwithin, on 07 July 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

They packed the game up in very few, very big archives so the patcher needs enough space to handle those, it's a little unfortunate ...

Thats not the problem. The problem is that it goes
download all -> extract all -> delete all old
if it would delete the old files each time there was a new one created, it would have been OK in my case. But there was a tree added in Map X, so Map X is created new, old not deleted.
There is no other explanation why a 1.XX GB patch would need more then 8GB space.
download - extract one, delete one ->, extract two, delete two would have worked.

But the REAL problem is that you cant start the extract new when you run out of space. So you always have to keep MWO disk space + patch space + extract space free. That could mean 20GB by now. Its easy if you have a 2TB hard disk, but if you only have a 500GB SSD like me (so in reality, after win about 400 realGB), that can get hairy.

[alVolVloLy]

I had the same issue with today's patch, insufficient disk space with around 10gb free, I ended up needing to free up around 24gb to install.

[xWiredx]

LennStar, on 07 July 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Thats not the problem. The problem is that it goes
download all -> extract all -> delete all old
if it would delete the old files each time there was a new one created, it would have been OK in my case. But there was a tree added in Map X, so Map X is created new, old not deleted.
There is no other explanation why a 1.XX GB patch would need more then 8GB space.
download - extract one, delete one ->, extract two, delete two would have worked.

But the REAL problem is that you cant start the extract new when you run out of space. So you always have to keep MWO disk space + patch space + extract space free. That could mean 20GB by now. Its easy if you have a 2TB hard disk, but if you only have a 500GB SSD like me (so in reality, after win about 400 realGB), that can get hairy.

You only have a 500GB SSD in your system? Who does that? Further, who fills up a 500GB SSD? What crap is it filled with? This whole thing smells of being atypical.

[Ironwithin]

xWiredx, on 07 July 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

You only have a 500GB SSD in your system? Who does that? Further, who fills up a 500GB SSD? What crap is it filled with? This whole thing smells of being atypical.

Atypical ? I, too, have one 500GB SSD that my system runs on and most of the "high maintenance" games I like to play. 500 gigs fill up real quick if you like diversity in your games and the point the OP raises is perfectly valid for any other setup.
Why would a patch, even if it is a "whopping" 1.4 gigs big, need 20+gigs to be applied ? It's just bad resource-management.

[xWiredx]

Ironwithin, on 07 July 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Atypical ? I, too, have one 500GB SSD that my system runs on and most of the "high maintenance" games I like to play. 500 gigs fill up real quick if you like diversity in your games and the point the OP raises is perfectly valid for any other setup.
Why would a patch, even if it is a "whopping" 1.4 gigs big, need 20+gigs to be applied ? It's just bad resource-management.

The average mainstream game on Steam is somewhere between 15-20GB now, with many AAA titles sized between 25-50GB. I don't know many people that will cycle through 8-20 different games at a time, though. Most people run an SSD as their boot drive and as fast storage for very frequently used applications, while storing everything else on a larger secondary drive.

Most people, when encountering a nearly full drive of any kind, will take the logical steps to attempt to free space and especially so when it's an SSD since they start underperfoming when they are near-full. Those who don't... well, sorry for their luck.

[LennStar]

Ironwithin, on 07 July 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

Why would a patch, even if it is a "whopping" 1.4 gigs big, need 20+gigs to be applied ? It's just bad resource-management.

The 24GB is for installing, the patch needed about 12GB I think. Of course I can only guess based on the patcher bar.

@xWiredX:
Its not really important through how many games you circle in the short time (for me its about 4-5). Its more important how many different you play in say half a year, because who wants to wait a whole day before a (big) game is downloaded again when they want to play it? Not to mention the SSD usage. You will fast reach the number of cycles if you download 30GB of game every week (not to mention people who have to pay for traffic after e.g. 100 GB or get slowed down). 10TB a year for games alone when the life time is 75TB? Does not sound very good.
Also games is not the only thing you may use a computer for.


And as I wrote I had more then enough free space for a 1 GB patch - theoretically. Yes, 8GB is low but I copied some big things over 2 days before. They will be deleted in a week or so and then I will be back at 26GB. Another big data packet will go away in a month. Another 20GB free. It was just bad luck.
But the mechanic of the patcher still sucks.

And yes, I have a unusual system. It does not make any sound if I switch off the speakers (and dont use a DVD). No moving parts you see. That is one reason why I am running SSD only. A magnetic HDD would make sounds, and my head rests less then 2m away from the computer when I sleep. And unfortunately I have very good ears. Dont ask me how often I say "what is that annoying sound?" and people around me just go "Huh? Which sound??"

Edited by LennStar, 07 July 2015 - 11:26 PM.

[Roaxis Stalomainis]

LennStar, on 07 July 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

And yes, I have a unusual system. It does not make any sound if I switch off the speakers (and dont use a DVD). No moving parts you see. That is one reason why I am running SSD only. A magnetic HDD would make sounds, and my head rests less then 2m away from the computer when I sleep. And unfortunately I have very good ears. Dont ask me how often I say "what is
that annoying sound?" and people around me just go "Huh? Which sound??"

Sorry, but I got a chuckle out of that myself. I know what it's like to have sensitive hearing myself and it tends to lead to some serious issues when it comes to PC's. While your PC is designed to not make any noise, mine makes plenty of it. If it was any louder my stepdad would swear I was trying to power up an Urbie! I run off of 5 case fans, a water cooler using a static push/pull airflow, a GTX 980 Amp Exteme Edition by Zotac and 3 mechanical HDD's. These things get super hot if you don't watch them, and is the reason why I will never have to buy a space heater again.