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 <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
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: <ifl71d$apr$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <ifhu4n$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$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<AANLkTimQzaxEOqyUVr6REL_xFsqYYYZ_HbRAhe-DtzsR AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<ifjgca$n9u$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<AANLkTimg7zB__vPeJnQJUWf8vRb_O932xTrmf6oDyvy9 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<ifkm3h$sf1$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <AANLkTimtrk5boR8q2iPnFu=_viuJK_nggN=4HauZ4rnw AT mail DOT gmail 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: <AANLkTimtrk5boR8q2iPnFu=_viuJK_nggN=4HauZ4rnw@mail.gmail.com>
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 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 <http://defaria.com>
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