Task manager /Performance

[Hike_Mike]

On the screeen (dual core) for CPU useage there are two CPU useage histories.
Which CPU is 'CPU useage' referring to? Simarly in "Processes' is the CPU
the sum of the two CPUs or one of them, or adjust equivalent to one of them.

The reason I ask is that when re-building the index, I note that the idle
process never goes below 84%, and the "CPU use history' is around 8-9%. So
this implies that

1) Indexing is really slow
2) It uses both CPUs, but very little
3) Tweaking the priority to 'high' doesn't do anyting with useage.
4) The CPU use *2 (becuase the graph CPU is approx the same and around 9%)
is doubled to get 18% use with is then subtracted from the 100% to get 82%
idle.. which would make no sense as EACH CPU is still 91% idle.

As per a previous question I either don't understand how to use help or
there is not much on what this window provides for the user in definable
metrics.

I would appreciate any comments on how to use the Performance graph or how
to tweak indexing using the task manager.. Also anything that would provide
some info on the task manager's use. The help file - what I have found - is
pretty thin. Reminds me of a help entry calculated to make one 'go away'
rather than help you. But then, I am often wrong.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

On the screeen (dual core) for CPU useage there are two CPU useage histories.

If you configure it so, then yes.

Which CPU is 'CPU useage' referring to? Simarly in "Processes' is the CPU
the sum of the two CPUs or one of them, or adjust equivalent to one of them.

This is the CPU resources that the application is using, over the total
CPU resources available.

In other words, a single threaded application (or an application locked
to one processor) using 100% of a single processor will report 50%
(well, actually probably 49%) in the Performance tab in Task Manager.

The reason I ask is that when re-building the index, I note that the idle
process never goes below 84%, and the "CPU use history' is around 8-9%. So
this implies that

1) Indexing is really slow

Yes, intentionally so to avoid causing performance issues for the user.
Stop touching the computer for a couple minutes and you may see this
pick up a bit.

2) It uses both CPUs, but very little

Also true.

3) Tweaking the priority to 'high' doesn't do anyting with useage.

Nor should it. Unless your system is starved for resources (running at
100% CPU) priorities don't mean anything.

I would appreciate any comments on how to use the Performance graph or how
to tweak indexing using the task manager..

What is the problem you're experiencing? Is the index not keeping up
with your changes?

 

[Hike_Mike]

Thank you for your reply.

1) I don't see a reply for the CPU useage insert to the left of the two "CPU
useage histories". What does this refer to. Most of this post is about how
that is computed.

2) Yes, the process CPU useage is per process if I am at the Process tab. I
got a little confused, my apology.
In the processes, there seem to be multiple items referring to indexing
(when you reindex). I presume some of them are handlers while there is a
single process that actually does the indexing (I am not sure of this and
next time I have to re-indexex I will check that). However, the other tasks
associated with this are using CPU for sure that is significant compared to
the indexing task.

However there is one idle task, and it reads 84% which as per your reply is
the average CPU idle between the cores. Looking at the CPU history graphs,
each core is around 9%

So the "CPU useage" graph, which peaked at 24-30% (only indexing and
background Vista tasks, no user tasks) is really an AVERAGE between cores ?
(instantaneous average, not time average).

The idle task simarly (process tab) which showed 84% idele is also an
AVERAGE between cores?

3) I have had problems indexing (in that email in Outlook 7 wouldn't
search), and have tried various suggestions found on this board. Each of
them required indexing. Basically each re-index took about 4 hours for 10k
items and that is a long time to wait. The problem appears to be fixed now
with 'Search 4', but if I have to re-open this issue, I would like to have a
re-index go 'faster'.

Your comments indicate that there is nothing in priorities that would force
this. It is unclear just why MS would want a re-index (or index) to take
this length of time without some sort of user control as to the effect upon
machine performance, hence my question.

Is that correct ?