HFS and 100% CPU

[maverick]

.
When doing a local upload, is it normal for HFS to use 100% CPU resources until the transfer finishes making the system sluggish and unresponsive until the process is done?    And what can be done about it?

~~~~~~~~~~
~~[/color] UPDATE [/b]~~[/b]
~~~~~~~~~~

The problem of cpu resource hogging processes that render a system unuseable until those processes finish whatever they are doing is "solved"[/color] with the help of a small freeware[/b] utility.

Read my post here --> http://www.rejetto.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2171&sid=3686cd037c922ce8bd9d18a9e5d5ba7a

maverick

[Rafi]

Yes, normal. Why not ? does your CPU have "better" things to do ?  
I assure you that upload from the outside - will not take 100% CPU...

[rejetto]

Windows does take a lot of CPU trasferring data on the network.
i wonder if Linux does it too.

[rejetto]

try disabling your firewall and see if the CPU decreases

[rejetto]

no wonder
anyway: what CPU do you have and what's your highest speed with HFS ? (with disabled firewall)

[rejetto]

i found from a test that my system (centrino 1.3) can reach 47MB/s from localhost to localhost. (i used ttcp to do the test)
this is much more i expected.
of course this is theoretic speed, because i get it with no disk reading/writing.
disk activity, GUI, programming abstraction, etc, is slowing down HFS.
that's ok, but now i wonder if we can improve speed.
this requires lots of tests, i can't do them now.
it is a long time i do not compare HFS speed with Apache speed.
i guess Apache can be thought as the best i can get, as speed, since it is highly optimized for speed (HFS is not)


Note: you may think speed is not related to CPU 100%, but it is.
If i can reach an higher speed with 100%, then i can reach the lower speed (the current one) using less CPU.

[Rafi]

Note: you may think speed is not related to CPU 100%, but it is.
If i can reach an higher speed with 100%, then i can reach the lower speed (the current one) using less CPU.

I think that although your theory of speed vs CPU is correct, it has  really nothing to do with real life (on the Internet...) . No one will use HFS in local LAN, and on the Internet - a 200KBps connection is considered  relatively high speed (not 20MB...and usually - much lower!) . With this type of connection & speed HFS should not take but a fraction of the CPU power... unless it has bugs...

[MarkV]

No one will use HFS in local LAN

You are wrong, I use it for LAN with Gigabit Ethernet, so speed issues are important...  :roll:

MarkV

[Rafi]

No one will use HFS in local LAN

You are wrong, I use it for LAN with Gigabit Ethernet, so speed issues are important...  :roll:

MarkV

What is so bad with M$'s Windows' HD resource sharing ? Why don;t you use that  ?

[rejetto]

sometimes i use HFS in LAN too
internet, for HFS, is only the primary target
we have other minor targets

[MarkV]

No one will use HFS in local LAN

You are wrong, I use it for LAN with Gigabit Ethernet, so speed issues are important...  :roll:

MarkV

What is so bad with M$'s Windows' HD resource sharing ? Why don;t you use that  ?

Since M$ decided to take rights management out of XP Home, there are only 2 choices: To share or not to share... :?
Some computers here even have shares disabled for security... HFS works regardless of that fact.

MarkV

[rejetto]

Since M$ decided to take rights management out of XP Home, there are only 2 choices: To share or not to share... :?

to share
google: scesp4i

[MarkV]

Since M$ decided to take rights management out of XP Home, there are only 2 choices: To share or not to share... :?

to share
google: scesp4i

Although this program brings back the 'Security' tab for folders, I can not restrict use of my fileshares.
In WinXP Pro, I can set 'Max No. of users', access rights... I test it a little further and post if I found something.

MarkV

[Rafi]

:?: So, why not install the XP pro ? both home & pro cost almost the same ...

[MarkV]

:?: So, why not install the XP pro ? both home & pro cost almost the same ...

No, not here in good ol' Germany. XP Pro costs twice as much as XP Home...  

Update: the shares' right management work if you boot in failsafe mode with network enabled. Very strange. :?: (The feature I mean is called 'Simple file sharing' I think)

Anyway, as it is OT, I'll stop now...

MarkV

[Azag]

Windows does take a lot of CPU trasferring data on the network.

From what I can see HFS running on XP Pro SP2 takes a lot more CPU than when running HFS on XP Pro SP1 when transfering data on the network.   It's hard to do anything else as the CPU remains at 100% until the transfer completes.  I didn't experience this type of problem when running HFS on XP Pro SP1.  I wonder why that is.

Well I was reluctant to upgrade from Windows XP Pro SP1 to SP2 and when I did it caused more harm than good. I was quite gald to switch back to SP1 and the true is u get the same updates anyway (except updates to fix the broken unfinished code of SP2 perhaps lol.) Conclusion after using both on 2 different Computers and testing to realize the horror stories of people upgrading...XP Pro SP2 is total garbage and doesn't even deserve a beta status (even though it's final that I tested) this is a broken alpha piece-o-crap and I feel for all those who were suckered into it by the ploy of "it has better security" and "how about that built in firewall". Well how about that firewall is it worth the trade off for a cheap integrated firewall with no pro features? All the while it doesn't recognize many Anti-Viruses so the "AV pseudo integration monitor is broken crap. Also now many programs that are well know and used by every day users are also guess what.....that's right they are broken too!!! Do your selves a favor if you have installed the abomination know as SP2 then uninstall it ASAP and be careful when doing so. For those whom haven't installed SP2 yet do yourselves a big favor and save plenty of aspirin or oxycontin (or whatever ususally quiets the pain) :lol:  and don't do it. Just say NO to SP2 ! :evil:    I like Win XP Pro SP1 w/ all updates (cept malware scanner for personal reasons :twisted: ) just fine. Btw with SP1 on 1Ghz AMD Athlon Thunderbird and 512MB SDRAM I never went over 46% CPU usage during an upload to myself with multiple browser windows open in IE 6 (fully updated as well).      :lol:  Also i had 10 connections to the my server (I do alot of registry/windows tweaks). I also run behind a router at 150 feet away from Wireless Access Point w/ 1 3 foot brick wall blocking and a window and 2 large white pines and HFS v2.0 beta21 runs flawless to the web testing my ping i get 42ms-48ms max (on a bad day 48) with Website Speed Test from here:
http://www.hostpulse.com/hosting/networktools/speedtest.asp
better than most webhosts service providers listed against me;) My speed from ISP supposed to be 5Mbps down and 512Kbps upload but do to the tweaks I get 1.18Mbps uploads...but only 3.5Mbps down do to the router and the obstructions in my path to wireless. Well alot of this is off topic but I just wanted to finish by saying to Rejetto that he did an awesome job coding this file server and we are all privledged that he was nice enough to share this app with us for free under GPL !  Great job man !!! I hope I can code this well one day    :idea: Many having problems have broke their Windows or your code or misconfigured one or both lol ! So on with testing I will go...l8rz. Peace all...