X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 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: <ifj4h8$5q4$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <ifhu4n$kl5$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<4D1CA8C0 DOT 9020806 AT redhat DOT com>	<ifim7c$6df$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<AANLkTi=+Ps6YkQcvRMOcOCFpJEo_ZQHvMb1A2qS=M90e AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<ifj4h8$5q4$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:41:12 +1300
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQzaxEOqyUVr6REL_xFsqYYYZ_HbRAhe-DtzsR@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: uptime not reporting CPU usage on Windows 7 (Possibly only when running in VMWare)
From: David Antliff <david DOT antliff AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:27, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> =A0On 12/30/2010 06:05 PM, David Antliff wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:23, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>> Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the
>>> system is. uptime should use that.
>>
>> But then they wouldn't be actual load averages where most
>> people/programs expected to see load averages.
>>
>> -- David
>
> Understood, but current real load averages be calculated? Besides wouldn't
> those people who expect to see real load averages (i.e. me!) be disappoin=
ted
> to only see 0's?!? IOW wouldn't even fake load averages be better than ju=
st
> always 0?!?


The "load average" is a bit more complicated than just how busy the
system is - it's related to the number of processes waiting for the
CPU, with some time-weighted averaging and a few other herbs and
spices. I'm no Windows system programmer so I don't even know if that
sort of information is even available to Cygwin.

I 'discovered' this zero thing myself last year when I was trying to
incorporate some sort of logging into a build system I wrote to run in
Cygwin - I had hoped to compare 'machine load' over multiple builds
over time, but as you know, you just get zeroes. So I just used build
timing metrics instead (i.e. the 'time' command). Personally I
wouldn't mind a Cygwin/Windows-specific measurement that provided some
sort of "how busy is the machine" metric (one probably exists -
anyone?) but I think it might be better to not overload the "load
average" fields as they are pretty specific in their meaning.

In my opinion, I think it's better to have zero values rather than
anything fake. A consistent and reasonable 'estimate' (if possible)
would be OK for my purposes but I can't speak for anyone else.

-- David.

--
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