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: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:22:35 -0500 Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <4D1CA8C0 DOT 9020806 AT redhat DOT 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 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 12/31/2010 11:44 AM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 31 December 2010 13:33, Andrew DeFaria wrote: >> 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. > 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. Doesn't matter. You are consciously attempting to paint me in a bad light and it's totally unjustified. You're making assumptions and attributing them to me nonetheless instead of just asking for clarification. I don't appreciate it. >> 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 only assumption that I know best is one that you've dreamed up in your own mind. I've never said it, nor implied it and now I'm telling you - I never thought it! I think it's something that should be done and would improve the usefulness of Cygwin. I do not imply the devs are ignorant - just busy perhaps. Any other negative things are things you're making up in your own mind. If you wish to be honest and truthful about something I said or something you think I said you need only ask! > >>> 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". > Well, if you take the 0% at face value even though you know the > machine is doing something, you're being rather silly. There is absolutely no reason to assume that 0% doesn't mean 0%. Yeah sure you can do some measurements and the like and pretty quickly come to the realization that 0% doesn't really mean 0%? But really, why are your fighting me on this? Why not simply make it better or at least make it something that nobody could mistake for simply a machine is not busy? > 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. Great then let's proceed to discuss this like gentlemen and leave the snide comments and un-serious quips out of it. It's really quite unnecessary. > >>>> 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. Let them do that. Include in the man page "Under Windows, loadavg is a crude approximation" and you're done. > 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. Great, well then couldn't uptime (and top, etc.) use that? -- Andrew DeFaria A flying saucer results when a nudist spills his coffee. -- 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