X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4D1CA8C0.9020806@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:44:15 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: uptime not reporting CPU usage on Windows 7 (Possibly only when running in VMWare) From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On 31 December 2010 13:33, Andrew DeFaria wrote: > =C2=A0On 12/31/2010 01:11 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: >>> >>> IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives y= ou >>> 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. Nor did I say that you did. See the "You'd be"? That's short for "You would be". And no, it wasn't meant entirely seriously. > 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! Blah, blah, blah. Let's say I was extrapolating from this: "Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the system is. uptime should use that.". Like the rest of your posts in this thread, that's dripping with the assumption that you know best and that the Cygwin devs haven't looked into this properly, while failing to provide a single new insight. >> 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 *cou= ld* > as easily say "the load avg was actually 0%". You can't tell so it's hard= ly > "pretty clearly". Well, if you take the 0% at face value even though you know the machine is doing something, you're being rather silly. But I agree, I think it would be better not to provide /proc/loadavg (which is where uptime gets the data from) in the first place if it's not going to provide actual load averages, although I expect there was some reason to provide a dummy implementation. >>> I beg to differ. I don't see how having 0 values is better than some >>> approximation of load. Because people would waste their time proving that it doesn't do what it's supposed to and then email about it. Also, load information is in fact already available from /proc/stat. Here's how to interpret it: http://www.linuxhowtos.org/System/procstat.htm. That's what 'top' uses as well. Andy -- 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