X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: uptime not reporting CPU usage on Windows 7 (Possibly only when running in VMWare) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:49:44 -0500 Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <4D1CA8C0 DOT 9020806 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 12/30/2010 08:41 PM, David Antliff wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:27, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >> On 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 disappointed >> to only see 0's?!? IOW wouldn't even fake load averages be better than just >> 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 do understand what load average is. What I'm saying is 0 is unhelpful. > 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. IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you no info at all! > 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. > 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. A simple count of the number of processes with CPU usage > 0 (minus the system idle) process would be a good start. Both the Task Manager and Process Explorer can show this so the info is there. -- Andrew DeFaria Why are they called stairs inside but steps outside? -- 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