uptime not reporting CPU usage on Windows 7 (Possibly only when running in VMWare)

[Andrew DeFaria]

  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 <http://defaria.com>
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