X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: uptime not reporting CPU usage on Windows 7 (Possibly only when running in VMWare) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:33:37 -0500 Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <4D1CA8C0.9020806@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9pre) Gecko/20100821 Lightning/1.0b2 Lanikai/3.1.3pre In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Note-from-DJ: This may be spam On 12/31/2010 01:11 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you no >> info at all! > Bollocks. You'd be the first to complain that those stupid Cygwin devs > don't even understand what an average is. Hold on there Tonto! I said nothing of the sort. If you're gonna put words in my mouth then please refrain for claiming that I insulted somebody else in the manner you did above. I didn't say that the Cygwin devs didn't understand what a loadavg is and I hardly called them stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a leap of misjudgment and then pinning it on me! > The 0% tells you pretty > clearly that that information is not available. I beg to differ. 0% is indistinguishable from "the machine was not busy at all". IOW it *could* say "that information was not available" and it *could* as easily say "the load avg was actually 0%". You can't tell so it's hardly "pretty clearly". Indeed reporting say a negative number would impart more information as the user would say "Huh?!?" and then perhaps the man page could explain that a negative number is returned because this information is not easily obtainable by Cygwin under Window. But reporting 0 is by definition ambiguous! >> I beg to differ. I don't see how having 0 values is better than some >> approximation of load. Surely Windows has some measurement of the number of >> processes in the run queue. > And surely you'd be able to find it at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library. Thanks for pointing out where they can find the info. >> A simple count of the number of processes with CPU usage> 0 >> (minus the system idle) process would be a good start. > Hardly. This is surely a subjective opinion. You're opinion is "hardly". Mine is "good start". > The challenge here is to actually collect the data for the > last 15 minutes, so you'd be looking either at some sort of service > process waking up frequently to sample the CPU state, or some unholy > and unreliable scheme where Cygwin functions go off and do that every > now and then before doing their actual job. While any of the 1, 5 or 15 minutes would be challenging as you say here, I still maintain that an instantaneous measure to substitute for at least the 1 minute figure would be an improvement over just putting out 0. You are free to maintain a different opinion just as I am free to hold this one. -- Andrew DeFaria Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to phish and he'll suck your bank account dry -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple