If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and
disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
If the slowness might have to do with system memory (RAM), is
there some Performance Monitor counter for that? I should be able to see something that is maxed out. Having a Performance Monitor counter showing that bottleneck would be a big deal here. Thanks. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
John Doe writes:
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. Well, define slow. Interactive use? Another program? And compared to what, that is, when does the system not seem slow? -- Nature fits all her children with something to do, He who would write and can't write, can surely review. - James Russell Lowell |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
On Oct 24, 9:07*pm, John Doe wrote:
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. Probably busy waiting for orders from the botnet? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
On 25 Oct 2011 03:07:46 GMT, John Doe wrote:
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? 1. processes than can't multithread and multithreaded stuff that is waiting for other threads Even things that can multithread in general can get slowed down. Things that are piped (like Unix pipes or the stuff I do that has virtual encrypted disks) can have lots of processes stalled waiting for the previous stage to send it the next buffer's worth of stuff.) 2. things doing random access or un-buffered disk activity. The disks might not look busy but data transfer rate goes down a great deal. The I/O count on the disks might not look all that high, but until you look carefully you might not see that the disk is waiting for seeks/rotation. 3. Perhaps some software resource is tied up. 4. Or, as you say, it could be a bus. Sometimes data is moved around more times than you might have thought. Be sure to count everything, including graphics. I haven't played around with this stuff for more than 20 years, but when it then DMA was usually involved. When you add in the graphics stuff and the fact that data movements by DMA might use 2 to 4 times the bandwidth you though you were using, perhaps a bus is the bottleneck. 5. Maybe the protocol overhead on USB or something is using more bandwidth than you think. (For example, a not too busy disk on USB might be a bottleneck.) 6. I also found on some systems that everything had to wait for certain types of floppy disk access; perhaps there is some modern example of this. (I never found out if the floppy issue was due to poor software design or some hardware limitation. Mainly curious. Thanks. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
John Doe wrote:
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. I've seen cases I can't explain. Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
On Oct 24, 11:07 pm, John Doe wrote:
Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. Coding efficiency, too. Some assembly compiled routines were preferable (adaptable for spawning into a command interpreter process or batched) over higher-language levels of abstractions - NET frameworks, DLLs, or whatever else makes for accompanying arrays graphical poison as preferably pretty to actually getting on the stick for a rushjob. I've heard mention these new AMD processors are geared for more efficient core interaction in terms of shared core arbitration when dealing with programs not specifically written for a multi-core platform;- but since they're already out and being sold, I've as well heard a few sceptical reactions to implementing the concept. Actually, past an unpopular conundrum for code-level incompatibility with abandoned software, doesn't seem as there's much choice in pragmatic terms, unless the rules of the universe were bent past multicores contained in speeds at something higher than present 3-4Ghz processors. I mean, how many times does it take to get tired of hearing the same 4-year-old proposal, that a multicore without specific software lacks overall great advantage while only running single processes over a single core without concurrence. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's the bottleneck when CPU and disks are not strained?
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:15:45 -0400, Paul wrote:
John Doe wrote: Sometimes I wonder, when none of my four CPU cores are over 50%, and disk activity is minimal, why would a process seem slow? The system bus? Mainly curious. Thanks. I've seen cases I can't explain. It's called Windows ;-) -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CPU Bottleneck with Radeon 9700? | Hukuis | Ati Videocards | 8 | April 9th 05 01:17 AM |
cpu bottleneck? | Brad Rogers | Nvidia Videocards | 5 | October 2nd 04 01:54 PM |
CPU Bottleneck | Neil Turner | Ati Videocards | 4 | December 13th 03 04:27 AM |
CPU Bottleneck | V | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | December 12th 03 08:58 AM |
1.6Ghz CPU = bottleneck for an FX5600? | Steve Evans | Nvidia Videocards | 3 | September 18th 03 12:40 PM |