|
Re: Measurement of CPU usage
de PaulFXH 05/07/2006 04:08
Jast escreveu:
> I have been using process explorer for years and it is quite adequate
> for my purposes in that when ever it says my cpu is under load, my
> computer does slow down. When it says my computer is idle then things
> are quick.
Yes I trust Process Explorer too. Its just that I was trying to
understand why many other utilities show CPU Usage figures that are
dramatically higher.
Do you want to see exactly what I mean?
You can download and install FreeMeter (for Free) from this site:
http://www.tiler.com/freemeter/download/license.php
This is an entirely trustworthy site that has been recommended many
times in this group (and with which I have absolutely no connection
whatsoever).
The file size is 888KB which will take seconds to download if you have
a DSL connection.
Yoy could then see immediately how the CPU Usage shown by FreeMeter is
so very different from that of Process Explorer.
FreeMeter can then be very easily uninstalled through Control
Panel>Add/Remove Programs if you don't want to keep it.
>
> One question on process explorer I have is when it displays red, is that
> related to disk usage?
>
I had thought that the red highlighting of processes in the Process
Explorer list showed processes that were just about to shut themselves
down. In my experience, if you keep watching them (the ones highlighted
in red) they'll disappear.
Is your experience different?
Paul
>
>
> PaulFXH wrote:
> > Jast escreveu:
> >
> >> PaulFXH wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>> Not looking for FreeWare--just trying to hear some opinions on
> >>> something that been bothering me for some time.
> >>> I use WinMe as OS and have downloaded various small utilities (all
> >>> FREE) to view CPU Usage on my computer.
> >>> These included Process Explorer, ActiveCPU, FreeMeter and WinTop.
> >>> Trouble is, they don't all show the same result. Indeed, the CPU Usage
> >>> results seem to fall into one of two distinct categories; very high or
> >>> very low.
> >>> As an example, while writing this I have all four of the above
> >>> utilities running showing the CPU usage (note that I have only one
> >>> single-core processor on this box). So, while Process Explorer and
> >>> WinTop show about 3.5% usage, FreeMeter and ActiveCPU, on the other
> >>> hand, both show about 64%.
> >>> I have seen exactly the same thing on at least one other computer
> >>> (running on WinXP).
> >>> I have posted to a number of groups trying to get somebody to explain
> >>> why there is this large difference and what significance should be
> >>> attached to it. I have even e-mailed the author of one of the
> >>> utilities.
> >>> However, up to now, nobody seems able, or willing, to provide an
> >>> explanation.
> >>> Is there anybody out there who can point me in the right direction on
> >>> this one?
> >>> TIA
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> > Hi Jast
> > Thanks a lot for your reply.
> > See my comments below.
> >> I guess it depends on how you are testing them? You should have a
> >> standard load set up, say a big avi file or something that maxes out
> >> your cpu at around 50 to 90% then monitor this using only one of your
> >> CPU monitors.
> > The problem here, Jast, is that I already have an indication of CPU
> > Usage in the range suggested by you. Thus, FreeMeter and ACPU were
> > reading 64% (more or less) when I did the test. Interestingly, this was
> > WITHOUT anything very big running, certainly no AVIs.
> >
> >> Then do the same thing with each one going. Running all of
> >> them at once will produce different results because they are sampling at
> >> different times and thus different results.
> >
> > OK, but the difference that I mentioned in my first post was 3.5% Vs.
> > 64%. That's very nearly a factor of 20. I don't think you need to be
> > mathematical genius to see that this is not due to different sampling
> > times.
> >
> >> Also, try increasing the
> >> sample period or update speed to something bigger, say at least 2 to 5
> >> seconds as this may average over a longer time and thus give better,
> >> smoother more accurate results.
> >
> > Actually, the sampling time, in those where it can be changed, is right
> > now 2 seconds. Even so, were the difference between the various results
> > 4% Vs. 4.5%, I think we might be able to attribute it to a sampling
> > problem.
> > But 3.5% Vs. 64%, I thing we can safely rule out sampling as an
> > explanation for this astronomical difference.
> >
> > Thanks again
> > Paul
> >