rejetto forum

HFS and 100% CPU

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maverick

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 1052
  • Computer Solutions
    • View Profile
.
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
maverick


Offline Rafi

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
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...


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
Windows does take a lot of CPU trasferring data on the network.
i wonder if Linux does it too.


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
try disabling your firewall and see if the CPU decreases


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
no wonder
anyway: what CPU do you have and what's your highest speed with HFS ? (with disabled firewall)


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
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.


Offline Rafi

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
Quote from: "rejetto"
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...


Offline MarkV

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
Quote from: "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
http://worldipv6launch.org - The world is different now.


Offline Rafi

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
Quote from: "MarkV"
Quote from: "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  ?


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
sometimes i use HFS in LAN too
internet, for HFS, is only the primary target
we have other minor targets


Offline MarkV

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
Quote from: "Rafi"
Quote from: "MarkV"
Quote from: "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  ?

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
http://worldipv6launch.org - The world is different now.


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13440
    • View Profile
Quote from: "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


Offline MarkV

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
Quote from: "rejetto"
Quote from: "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
http://worldipv6launch.org - The world is different now.


Offline Rafi

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 452
    • View Profile
:?: So, why not install the XP pro ? both home & pro cost almost the same ...


Offline MarkV

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 764
    • View Profile
Quote from: "Rafi"
:?: 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
http://worldipv6launch.org - The world is different now.