|
Re: Measurement of CPU usage
de Jast 05/08/2006 12:21
PaulFXH wrote:
> 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
I downloaded and installed it on my XP box and it is quite close to what
process explorer is indicating, usually within 10% of process explorer,
and usually higher. I then set the update speed to 5secs on both of them
and this made both cpu measurements within 3% or less of each other. So,
on my box they both agree with each other. I also tried it on various
cpu usages from idle to around 60% up to 95% and once again they were
both consistent.
> 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
>>>
>