I imagine this may be PL related but I know MS power management can be a major biatch ::)
Basically, the box won't go to sleep. (It does normally sleep without PL power saver active if not in high performance mode)
Without PL interacting, if the PC is in high performance mode attempting 'sleep', even from the shut down menu doesn't work; in Balanced or power saver it will sleep (at least that's how my mobo responds to the commands).
When the PL Power Saver mode is active it logs the change of power profile state, so I have to assume that it is doing it's job; Win7 on the other hand does not trigger sleep mode as a consequence of switching to lower power use profiles.
If I understand PL Power Saver correctly entering a state other than high performance for the req'd interval should eventually bring the sleep mode trigger into action. Or am I mis-interpreting the Power Saver protocols impact on the power options?
Hmm... there is something missing from this picture, as it doesn't make sense. The Power Profile, once switched however, by Windows or a third-party application, is switched. There's no difference whether you did it yourself or Energy Saver did it. OF COURSE, Energy Saver will UNDO the transition *IF* there is any user activity on the system. By 'user activity' I mean the same thing Windows users to determine if it's appropriate to sleep, the same metrics - the same API call. So, make sure there is not additional activity of some sort occurring that might cause Energy Saver to go back to High Performance. *IF* that is the case, then it would be shown in the log.
Also, make sure you haven't defined any 'No Sleep' processes in Process Lasso. There is a configuration dialog that lists these in the Options menu. If you had, and one is running, this would explain it.
Thanks for confirming my gut response.
Now I 'know' PL won't be forcing a non-sleep state & that it shouldn't over-ride the Win sleep triggers.
My prevent sleep list is empty btw.
Is there anything which traces the responses of Win PM in windows itself, can event viewer give me enough information on failure to sleep, (it is recording some info) ie a specific search string?
Guess this is a new opportunity to play with PL & see what is going on under the hood so it will keep me out of mischief :)
I don't know if the Windows Event Log can shed any light on this or not, since I have no idea the cause.
Here's my thoughts:
1. Many OEMs supply third-party software that creates all sorts of custom power profiles. It then can 'manage' them itself. Be sure to check for something like that installed.
2. Some hardware device may be preventing sleep. Verify that you see this phenomenon with Process Lasso terminated. There's no need to uninstall, as there's nothing else to it.
I wouldn't mind seeing the output of 'powercfg.exe -qh'. You can get it by running something like ' powercfg -qh > c:\users\myusername\Desktop\my_power_settings.txt ' .
Any readers who find this thread with similar concerns (I know you know):
Your Power Profile configuration is found in Windows. Find 'Power Options'. You have to make an extra click to see High Performance sometimes, then another click to see the Advanced Options. These should be checked carefully. They are very granular and cover lots of devices.
Oh, and multimedia applications can prevent sleep too, as well as other third-party software ... So, check your applications too.
Thanks for the tips, the cmd line was useful.
I initially decided to set all profiles to the same HDD, Monitor & system sleep minute value trigger (leaving other values alone). I reasoned that that way whatever PL did, the final trigger time would match any profile.
I did find a couple of things but it seems that the main culprit is an instance of svchost keeping the system awake because of the network connection.
This must be related to wake on LAN but what is strange is that without that active, the box will sleep even if the net connection is actively working - ie I could download a file & the box would enter sleep mode during the process if it took longer than the duration of the sleep trigger setting. Something like a large game demo gets cut off mid transfer...
I would say that it is driver/win related. I guess PL has high-lighted the effects as I took a higher than normal interest in PM activity because of its' new features. ;D
Thanks again for the prompt & relevant assistance!
You may be on the right track. Wake On LAN *should* be used to 'wake up' a computer already asleep, not prevent one from sleeping .. Still, it sounds like you're on the right track. Perhaps go to Device Manager. Then find Network Adapters. Expand it. Double click your ethernet adaptor(s) and you'll find a 'Power' tab on each. Changing this setting (or others) *might* have an impact... but perhaps you've already been there ;)
Of course, ensure you don't have any streaming multimedia, as this will definitely prevent sleep. You may want to check other devices there too. It really could be any of your hardware devices, as about all have the ability to prevent sleep.
Good luck!
Borrowing this thread.
Could you please check to see why it is that sometimes the settings in Energy Saver seems to change by themselves? For example just now, after I woke my computer up from Powersaving Mode, Windows (7 pro) was stuck in energy saving mode even while I was actively using the computer. I normally run it at High performance mode, and then let it go to energy saving mode when idle for 10.
Checking the Energy Saver dialogue in PL, the "current active power profile" reads out as energy saving mode. I think you'll have to take some steps to further enforce what's wanted from the user, something that can't be changed on it's own or through any other program if you for example check a box saying something like "Let rules set up by PL override all other energy saving managers", or something like that.
Energy Saver only changes the power profile, and doesn't force it to stay there. Also, if it got lowered by *something else*, it won't force it back upwards.
If you mean the power profile is set to whatever Energy Saver uses on Idle, perhaps it was changed by the user or another application. Once changed *externally*, Energy Saver won't go 'upwards' again.
So, if possible, simply change your active power profile to High Performance (or whatever) and it will then work correctly. If you can't change the active power profile, then something is wrong, perhaps maybe an application power profile with Forced Mode enabled, I don't know.. or third party software even.
As for providing an option to *force* it to go back to another power profile (e.g. back up to High Performance), that will be present at some point for sure, though I'm still evaluating the precise way I'll expose it to the user.
I hope I understood your meaning. I also don't know what might be changing the power profile on your PC, but some PC's come with OEM software that changes the power profile on some events.
Ok, edited for final answer I think ;p. I got your question. I don't know why your power profile is changing sometimes, maybe third-party software, but yes it is an issue to consider.
The only problem is forcing an over-ride of a power profile change made by the user or a third-party application is it could cause chaos, or a fight between applications for management of the power profile. Thus, I'm still evaluating how to best offer up such a feature to the user. I've been thinking about it for a while, and why I added the 'active power profile' to the Energy Saver Dialog.
Good! :)
I was preparing a rather lengthy "clarification answer", but yeah you got my point there! ;)
Aye, I agree that enforcing it could possibly cause chaos between other applications, that's why a checkbox or something would be a good option, possibly with a warning of what could possibly go wrong by enforcing these settings.
I'll check around a bit to see if I can find anything that triggers issue, I'll let you know my findings.
Someday, I will learn to read before I write, lol ;).
Anyway, I have a couple ideas about how to do this safely. A checkbox with warnings might do it. Or perhaps something more elaborate, like notifying the user if an external change does take place, and prompting them what to do in that event, all similar events, etc... Like a firewall would notify you of an outgoing connection. We'll see how it pans out.
There has to be something that made the power profile switch. Windows itself shouldn't have done it. My bet would be on third-party software or maybe a rule of Process Lasso, unless you change profiles in your sleep ;).
After a few sessions of digging around.....
I discovered a few different sources of similar troubles, various forums show instances where Win7 PM is working one minute then for some reason it just won't behave as it had been previously.
Who knows why a profile would seemingly change triggers on its' own? Too many variables to get a straight answer/culprit I think. :-\
Patch Tuesday take one step forward please. :P
I found that my network card despite being set to obey WOL & (presumably) network activity now will over-ride that with PM shutdown/sleep. Previously not the case... (Was in the throes of investigating this when you posted Mr Bitsum :) )
The temporary solution has been to disable the network adapters' PM but this now means the PC will NEVER sleep regardless of activity. ???
I'm not the only one having the problem - Coffee http://sourceforge.net/projects/coffee-sc/ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/coffee-sc/) has been recently written to address this issue.
So I shall be trying this next ;)
It is interesting how the sheer complexity of the power management of Windows can cause problems. Since every device can participate in the power management process, it allows the opportunity for issues. The third-party OEM software often installed as a' bonus' also isn't helpful.
Coffee looks like an interesting tool to prevent sleep (or not) during network activity, but do be careful to backup your previous power settings first via powercfg.exe -qh > backup.txt or something like so. Create a restore point, etc..
I really had no idea this was such an issue until your post. i did not know many people had this problem [the inability for their PC to sleep, unrelated to Process Lasso]. Of course, there may be several major causes, which I'd be curious to discover for certain.
My issue happened again yesterday; Windows was stuck in power saving mode even during activity. My machine don't have any third-party apps that I'm not aware of, since this is a home built PC with Windows installed from scratch by me.
This may happen after reboot, or after waking the computer up from sleep. It's rather uncommon afaik. Again, the option to enforce rules more strictly in PL would help sort this out I think.
No idea how it got in power saving mode, eh? Desktop PC? .. Strange, I don't know.
Yes, I can enforce stricter profile management I suppose, over-riding any third party or user intervention.
Quote from: bitsum.support on April 09, 2012, 01:06:41 PM
No idea how it got in power saving mode, eh? Desktop PC? .. Strange, I don't know.
Yes, I can enforce stricter profile management I suppose, over-riding any third party or user intervention.
The only program I have, that I know of, that puts the machine into power saving mode is PL, because I told it to - after the computer's been idle for ten seconds. As soon as I'm using it, it returns to high performance, except for these odd occasions.
Final analysis for DeadHead's issue is:
1. Energy Saver could get left in 'Balanced' or 'Power Saving' (whatever the profile you chose) *if* an unattended shutdown occurred or the governor was improperly terminated without user intervention.
My previous ASSumption that a crash of the governor would have to occur was incorrect.
Actions:
+ Fix applied to v6 beta branch for proper shutdown of Energy Saver during unattended shutdowns/restarts
+ Fix applied to v6 to recover from abnormal terminations of governor, restoring the power profile no matter what
+ Backported both of above to v5 stable branch - will be in v5.1.0.70
The first case is still presumed unrelated, as it is inverse of this one.
v5.1.0.69 beta resolves this. Will go final soon, as it is just barely a beta.
Quote from: bitsum.support on April 09, 2012, 06:35:07 PM1. Energy Saver could get left in 'Balanced' or 'Power Saving' (whatever the profile you chose) *if* an unattended shutdown occurred or the governor was improperly terminated without user intervention.
Considering the fact that my kids from time to time mess with my computer, and more than once have managed to turn it off in a bad way, this seems to match what I've observed. Thanks for taking the time to look into this! :)
Quote from: DeadHead on April 10, 2012, 06:23:40 AM
Considering the fact that my kids from time to time mess with my computer, and more than once have managed to turn it off in a bad way, this seems to match what I've observed. Thanks for taking the time to look into this! :)
Thank YOU for telling me about it ;). Opening my eyes, if you will. Sometimes it takes me a minute to think through what the reporter is saying, and how it might happen, but I usually get 'there' in the end, lol.
It is so difficult to test and regression test every feature, that's why I rely on users to help in beta testing. Hence the new v6 beta test group, whose goal is to make sure things are *right* before we reach final. Of course, I haven't reached a public alpha yet, so I need to quit mentioning v6 - as I get asked every day when it is coming ;p
And the final was released, game over on this bug. PLEASE, if you see this occur again, let me know. I did preliminary testing and code review, and it is so simplistic that it surely won't malfunction, but don't hesitate to tell me if it does. My ego is much less important than a quality product ;).
Just one quick follow up.
Juggling settings & the PL right click menu prevent sleep for processes seems to have things running as I would like (So far).
I am sure I'll get more curve balls in future as MS PM is sooooo convoluted but right now I'm almost where I want to be ;D
Thanks for looking into this.
Glad your PC close to your desired overall behavior ;). Just let me know if there's anything you feel that could use an adjustment.
Just wanted to let you know, that *so far* I have NOT seen the issue I reported earlier appear again. I'll post here again, should it return! ;)
Quote from: DeadHead on April 15, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
Just wanted to let you know, that *so far* I have NOT seen the issue I reported earlier appear again. I'll post here again, should it return! ;)
Great, thanks for reporting back ;)
I have read this thread, but for me with XP, I believe it not relevant in my case, since my computer is running 24/7. I hope my understanding, is not misplaced. :)
Quote from: Tarnak on April 15, 2012, 09:10:51 PM
I have read this thread, but for me with XP, I believe it not relevant in my case, since my computer is running 24/7. I hope my understanding, is not misplaced. :)
right, most of the sleep and power setting in PL only apply to vista/win7 + etc . MS changed how it works with more options now then in XP .
I just leave my desktop always on with only monitor shutting down after a while . I personally don't like HD, hibernation etc , it can sometimes cause issue when you wake it up again .
In XP the power/energy settings should be grayed out in PL .
Quote from: edkiefer on April 16, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
right, most of the sleep and power setting in PL only apply to vista/win7 + etc . MS changed how it works with more options now then in XP .
That's what I thought. Thanks or the confirmation.
Quote from: edkiefer on April 16, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
I just leave my desktop always on with only monitor shutting down after a while . I personally don't like HD, hibernation etc , it can sometimes cause issue when you wake it up again .
Me, too!
Quote from: edkiefer on April 16, 2012, 07:36:34 AM
In XP the power/energy settings should be grayed out in PL .
Confirm... except for 'Configure No Sleep processes', which is not grayed out.
Quote from: bitsum.support on April 15, 2012, 09:33:54 AM
Glad your PC close to your desired overall behavior ;). Just let me know if there's anything you feel that could use an adjustment.
Very happy with the impact of the changes you have made to the PM control. I can now leave the PC knowing it will sleep or not as req'd. ;)
Not sure how tied the monitor vs box PM controls are, but is it a simple hack to separate monitor sleep & box sleep? i.e. can I lock a process in prevent box sleep but have my monitor sleep as normal? Perhaps via a right click option in the 'no sleep processes' dialog?
*CORRECTION* to my previous hasty post.
Quote from: bertie97 on May 13, 2012, 04:33:18 AM
Not sure how tied the monitor vs box PM controls are, but is it a simple hack to separate monitor sleep & box sleep? i.e. can I lock a process in prevent box sleep but have my monitor sleep as normal? Perhaps via a right click option in the 'no sleep processes' dialog?
Yes, I can differentiate the two. If you want such, I can allow it. I will add this to version 6 for sure, maybe earlier. It's pretty darn easy, just gotta redo the GUI mostly.
QuoteIn XP the power/energy settings should be grayed out in PL .
The 'no sleep' function *is* supported in 2K/XP, as well as Vista and above, since it does not rely on changing power profiles. Hence, it is not greyed out, and will work fine.
I have added to the internal build of version 6 the option to choose either or both, "Prevent display from sleeping" and "Prevent PC from sleeping".
Quote from: bitsum.support on May 13, 2012, 11:11:54 AM
*CORRECTION* to my previous hasty post.
Yes, I can differentiate the two. If you want such, I can allow it. I will add this to version 6 for sure, maybe earlier. It's pretty darn easy, just gotta redo the GUI mostly.
The 'no sleep' function *is* supported in 2K/XP, as well as Vista and above, since it does not rely on changing power profiles. Hence, it is not greyed out, and will work fine.
Ah, that would be my mistake a few posts back , no sleep is available , just power profile and energy saving is grayed out in XP .
I'm just wondering if there's a way to NOT use process Lasso's power profile settings.
Right now my windows energy scheme is a custom one. (that prolasso actually shows as used)
But according to certain preset rulings in ProLasso (e.g. Gaming Mode) it would be swapped to a ProLasso preset scheme. :-\
(well. According to the documentation at least)
Which is rather always a LOWER power using scheme.
I've set my custom profile on a sort of "Full Power" setting, that never turns off HDD's, monitors etc.
And has everything on their highest energy settings.
Or is this already in the bag and I simply don't know where to look for it. ???
Quote from: DeadHead on April 15, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
Just wanted to let you know, that *so far* I have NOT seen the issue I reported earlier appear again. I'll post here again, should it return! ;)
Yes, please do - BUT, I am fairly confident I identified and fixed the issue you reported. (famous last words? ;p)
GTX2GvO - I assume you don't want to knock PL PM out completely via Main>Energy Saver Enabled (i.e checked or unchecked.) Personally I have allocated my games to my High Perf. profile via options>power>configure application power profiles. Did that option not work out for you?
bitsum.support - look forward to seeing the added PM functions - & sorry for adding to your work-load... ;)
Here's a screenshot of that the expanded anti-sleep capabilities look like in the v6 GUI so far.
That looks like exactly what I need. ;D
Looking forward to the next iteration! 8)
Well you will have it ;). I am cranking things out as fast I can, want to have as much as I can in the first build, scheduled for 05/31/2012. Even if its not where I'd prefer it to be, its going out. If as an alpha or beta.
Good to know things are moving along.
I was looking around the site for any beta posts but can't seem to see any, maybe I'm now looking in the right place, or maybe there are none yet. Seem to recall a beta tag somewhere but I don't see it now. ???
O.T. - PL has become an essential tool for me now. I am finding more & more that it is useful in diagnostic roles. I am often trying to optimize things & the feedback of PLs main dialog is a great help. I unreservedly recommend it wherever I can.
Thanks bertie97 ;). I missed my revised release date of 05/31/2012, and while I have some darn good excuses for doing so (hard to work if you're deathly sick), I am getting it together now. There will also be a minor update to v5, not to be confused with v6.
Finishing up the dialog support for this feature (about 50% on that), forgot I'd have to rewrite that dialog completely for this too. The back-end stuff and governor is all written, though not yet tested much. Should do fine though, unless I made any mistake while sleepy. 7 more chores remain, just tedious stuff. Nothing difficult.
I recently lost my HD and had to reinstall from scratch. In doing so I noticed that the "Disable when NOT running on batteries" checkbox does not stay checked in Energy Saver settings. When you leave the box and come back it is always unchecked.
Quote from: Hotrod on June 05, 2012, 01:41:32 PM
I recently lost my HD and had to reinstall from scratch. In doing so I noticed that the "Disable when NOT running on batteries" checkbox does not stay checked in Energy Saver settings. When you leave the box and come back it is always unchecked.
Thanks. That is an artifact that went unnoticed. I will fix it on up in a minor update while v6 goes through its final cycle here. I can't believe nobody told me earlier, lol.
I am uploading a quick refresh of v5.1.0.84. It will NOT be pushed out as an update, no need for that. It simply removes that option from being visible. It was not supposed to be visible yet, that was the artifact. The backing code was incomplete.
EARLY alpha now out with this support
Looking good!
That leaves me with only one more question - what surprises have you planned for version 7?! :P ;D ;D ;)
There are still more surprises planned for version 6.
Not sure if this is me failing to understand the dialogs... but I just put 6.x.40 beta on the PC & I am seeing in the 'no sleep' settings :-
Prevent only Display
Prevent whole PC
ie prevent from sleeping...
Wondering if this should be 'allow' only display to sleep rather than it's current ability to stay on when everything else is asleep :D or am I just not getting it somehow? ???
Everything else seems good, will be 'pushing boundaries' later to see what happens. Mission critical tasks like games for example ;)
The whole idea of the feature is sleep prevention during specific events ...like overnight processes. This looks like just what we needed, with reservations for tweaks as we learn. ;)
@bertie97: Yes, I struggled with this presentation myself, and had planned to revisit it. You are right, it needs reformed, as it can be confusing.
The two BASIC levels of sleep that get prevented are:
1. Full sleep (Prevent PC from sleeping)
2. Display sleep (Prevent display(s) from sleeping)
This will likely change at some point in its presentation, though I'm not sure yet into what form. There is so much to do, I just do as much as I can per day ;)
OK, now I get it, I was looking at the dialog from the 'other perspective' - ie I want to select to
- keep PC & display awake
- allow display to sleep
Whereas as a disciplined programmer you are trying to keep it in syntax with the heading statement - prevent 'x' ..prevent sleep, only display/nothing to enter sleep state. .. at least thats what it looks like to me.. ;)
Main thing is it's working :)
It appears the recent update to beta 6.x.46 has knocked out the prevent sleep function. Will play around a little & see if it comes back if I re-enter the progs concerned to a cleared dialog.
I notice that adding a prog to display only also adds whole PC on the line below when I OK & close the dialog. ie - on my return it has appeared in the list. Maybe this is intentional but it is a bit puzzling to me :)
If I del that entry it comes back after I close the dialog. This is a bit like opening the fridge door to see if the light is still on.... ;D
Will report back if clearing the dialog completely resets things.
---Hmm it won't let me delete the old entries - I remove, then they reappear after I close & reopen the dialog. I now will wait & see if the no-sleep becomes active for the new (tho duplicate) entry.
---Killed the old entries in the .ini - now they aren't returning, obviously the dialog wasn't updating the ini for removal of entries.
Now to see if sleep occurs....
Prevent sleep didn't work.
Now I've updated to beta x.50 so will let you know of any changes. (x64 on W7x64 btw)
Now at beta x.53 & things are working. & I would say generally this build feels less "clunky" in how it's working behind the scenes.
Don't know why people get angry about beta errors, that is what a beta is about - fault finding & an opportunity to share in the creative process.
I don't mind a few bugs if it means I get to see a better product at the end.
Writing code isn't the easiest thing in the world & logic rarely wins against some of the bugs I've seen over the years. ;D
Update -
No sleep is not working for me (it was in x.51) ??? :)
Quote from: bertie97 on July 21, 2012, 07:45:11 AM
Now at beta x.53 & things are working. & I would say generally this build feels less "clunky" in how it's working behind the scenes.
Don't know why people get angry about beta errors, that is what a beta is about - fault finding & an opportunity to share in the creative process.
I don't mind a few bugs if it means I get to see a better product at the end.
Writing code isn't the easiest thing in the world & logic rarely wins against some of the bug I've seen over the years. ;D
Ya, found a bug in beta is better than found a bug in stable build ;)
And improving the produce is more harder, a little change will cause more problem coming to developers.
I'm now up to x.59 & it appears that no sleep is active again :)
However it also keeps the monitor on when set to allow monitor to sleep. :(
I guess Windows Power management just will not surrender without a fight! ;)
Now to test Game mode ;D
Thanks Bertie, I will take a look at it. Programmatically, it should be 'surrendering', so I'm not sure what the deal may be - yet. I will figure it out.
Quote from: BenYeeHua on July 21, 2012, 10:13:53 AM
Ya, found a bug in beta is better than found a bug in stable build ;)
And improving the produce is more harder, a little change will cause more problem coming to developers.
If only all developers agreed with you. ;)
Very many buggy products released with endless & huge patches in the game industry for example.
Guess you just have to learn to be patient... :P
FWIW, PC environments are complex and chaotic. Users have installed all sorts of software on all sorts of editions of Windows on all sorts of hardware. It is like a jungle ;p. Some minidumps I've analyzed had 10 different third-party DLLs injected into my processes! (note: Process Lasso NEVER injects DLLs).
Quote from: bertie97 on July 25, 2012, 06:40:50 AM
If only all developers agreed with you. ;)
Very many buggy products released with endless & huge patches in the game industry for example.
Guess you just have to learn to be patient... :P
Okey, as I saying is some known big bugs that will affect the normal use of the software(or os).
Just like using the software and bang!
BSOD, crash...... :P
----
And the core parking(ProBalance) have some issues,
if the ProBalance is restrain, and the update running and end the PL, after the update is finish, they will found that the core parking is changed to 100%.
Maybe the updater need the function that make sure the ProBalance is stopped, so that it will not causing the issues like this.----
Correction about core parking.
It still 100% after the ProBalance restrain...(by using ParkControl to checking it)
And it will affect power consumption/temp on having >4 core when idle even after disable/uninstall PL.----
Correction again :P
Checked with Resource Monitor, the core still remain parking when ProBalance restrain, using ParkControl to checking it, but it still showing 100%(and after restrain also)
Bug on ParkControl(with showing wrong, but working correctly when click apply) and ProBalance, or ProBalance only disable core parking with logical core, but not "fake" core?
Showing 100% of the minimum cores that must remain unparked, you mean?
ProBalance's setting to optionally disable CPU Parking is hopefully working correctly, but please report if not. I did test it and it seemed to be fine. The *one area* where I have concern is on hardware that does not support CPU parking. In these cases, there is nothing to disable, and nothing to enable - thus the user may be confused as to why it doesn't get 'enabled' by ParkControl. Detecting these situations is on the agenda for the future, though they will become less common by then - ironically. Most who would want to disable core parking surely have it ;).
Sorry to hear about the BSOD, but the one thing I can say for sure is that Process Lasso has no kernel mode code, so can't generate BSODs ;). (most of this written for people reading, as you already know) These are normally driver issues, as I'm sure you know, but can sometimes end up being overheating or voltage irregularities that cause an error in the computational function of your PC (e.g. RAM error or CPU error), inducing a crash. That's a big reason they added the new 'RAM Tester' in Windows Vista and above, which will reboot your PC and do a pre-boot check of your RAM. It is a good PC stability tester. Once you know your PC is stable, then you have to take a hard look at every kernel mode component, including your security suite.
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 25, 2012, 06:43:09 AM
FWIW, PC environments are complex and chaotic. Users have installed all sorts of software on all sorts of editions of Windows on all sorts of hardware. It is like a jungle ;p. Some minidumps I've analyzed had 10 different third-party DLLs injected into my processes! (note: Process Lasso NEVER injects DLLs).
I sometimes wonder how anyone gets anything to work. It is a minefield & there are some dubious configs out there. Unfortunately for devs relatively few people realize this or will tolerate the new product not working...
Then there are some releases that are just obeying some ill-advised management & give the coders no chance to fully debug etc.
Personally, I would like to see (some) devs & MS Win give better error reports to help identify what is happening. Often there isn't even a starting point for an end-user. Just a CTD or whatever.
Not that any of this applies to PL of course. ;D
Well, we/I do have minidumps to use, but sometimes these are surprisingly unhelpful. What happens is if you get stack corruption, or have an invalid path of execution, the call stack gets totally corrupted and the minidump is near useless. However, they are good at identifying *some* obvious errors. Problem is, most errors aren't obvious, lol. Also, when the error is in third-party code, there isn't much you can do about it, even if you can track down their error. Often times I have to work around third party problems. Oh well ;o.
Well bitsum.support ------- That is the quixotic life of the code warrior! :D
On the power front I found pre- x.62 the PC wouldn't sleep at all if a process was in the no-sleep list, whether it was allow display or not.
Now running x.62 & the PC sleeps regardless.
I bet you are glad you started this now! ;D
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 26, 2012, 01:52:45 AM
Showing 100% of the minimum cores that must remain unparked, you mean?
ProBalance's setting to optionally disable CPU Parking is hopefully working correctly, but please report if not. I did test it and it seemed to be fine. The *one area* where I have concern is on hardware that does not support CPU parking. In these cases, there is nothing to disable, and nothing to enable - thus the user may be confused as to why it doesn't get 'enabled' by ParkControl. Detecting these situations is on the agenda for the future, though they will become less common by then - ironically. Most who would want to disable core parking surely have it ;).
Having a i3-2330m on Asus K43SJ.
Yes, tested and it don't work, but the ParkControl is showing
100% of the minimum cores that must remain unparked when the Probalance restraint the process, and it
still showing 100%
after restraint.(But apply it by using ParkControl is without problem)
But after having a window 7
restart, or changing the
power plan(switch to another and switch back), the CPU Parking is
disable.
Just like the os not re-read the CPU Parking setting and set it correctly.
Don't know it is matter of Power4Gear Hybrid or not.
So I have disable the function to disable CPU Parking as only the fake core are parked.
Sorry for reply late, as I normally using the function up there(Show unread posts since last visit.) and it not showing this post(and some new post too...)
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 28, 2012, 05:01:32 PM
Do you have any media player active by chance? I apologize if I already asked this.
No, just a program I use for downloads that since the new mobo isn't recognised by Win7 as a function that needs an awake PC. ???
PL had totally fixed that & when u intro'd the 'allow the display to sleep' I was in PM nirvana. :)
Now somehow it's all back to 'normal' - ie win does what it wants regardless. ::)
Games however do not allow sleep, & when the Steam stuff is updating it seems to be OK, though nothing has been over 10 mins to download yet...
& as a side-note - the overall gaming response & feel of the PC is now better than it has been, so #6 is certainly making a difference in positive ways.
Glad the code base of version 6 is generally good - it should be to be honest. Lots of improvements were made that the user doesn't see. Sadly, some minor cosmetic errors here and there in the first build or two were probably more noticeable than all the countless hours of internal code refactoring. BUT, that's life ;).
[EDIT - truncated for future readers]
The 'Prevent (i.e. allow :P ) Display Sleep' entry alone = sleep.
I added an extra 'prevent whole PC' to the list & the whole PC has remained awake with no attempt to shut anything down. Power management profile switching has occurred correctly.
I thus imagine that the 'prevent display' process is broken. It did work previously as I noted above in the x.5x builds.
The .log shows power profile switch & priority throttling etc. No errors appear to be present. However the addition of the 2nd entry for the same .exe, has show this -
29-07-2012 18:42:44.017,B-PC,B,tired.exe,8012,Entering 'Prevent Display Sleep' mode,This process is configured to prevent the display(s) from sleeping.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe"
29-07-2012 18:42:48.089,B-PC,B,tired.exe,8012,Sleep prevention continues,A sleep preventing process ended? but other sleep preventing processes are still running.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe"
29-07-2012 18:43:06.340,B-PC,B,tired.exe,6056,Sleep prevention continues,A sleep preventing process ended? but other sleep preventing processes are still running.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe"
29-07-2012 18:43:06.356,B-PC,B,tired.exe,6900,Leaving no sleep mode,The PC is now allowed to sleep when set to.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe"
It seems that for some reason the display setting permitted sleep but the presence of the additional Prevent sleep for whole PCcommand caught the lapse. No red stop lights so far that I have noticed.
HTH
Thanks Bertie! That is what I needed to know. Don't worry about those duplicate log entries (some same messages for both types of prevent sleep), that was just me being lazy (with all the translations and all).
I will do more research and testing ASAP.
Just updated to x.64 so I will see how it's looking in the ongoing war on Win PM :)
I really like the right-click function on these PM settings btw. :)
I found I needed to manually edit the ini for the no sleep processes (ie removal of entries).
You have plenty of vital stuff to do so without nagging in any way (!) I notice that dialogs & docs still refer to 'disallow display to sleep' as opposed to allow only display to sleep.
Not a problem really but a reminder as it may be confusing to newcomers. :P
Should be a straightforward SAR for you I guess. ;)
Ok, I think I've figured out the confusion ... it was my fault in the implementation, AND my fault in not communicating effectively. The GOOD news is that it *is* working like it is supposed to (I believe).
1. In context menu, I made it an either/or operation, but it should be a consolidated option - BOTH should be allowed on the same process.
In fact, they are BOTH allowed on the same process in the configuration dialog, and in the rules - just not shown in the checkboxes.
2. The message I show on EITHER is that the 'PC' will not be allowed to sleep - this causes confusion.
I will fix this up in .66 (the next final).
To summarize things I've attached a picture of the Windows Power Options for a Power Profile. The Display's Timeout is what is affected by this new option.
(regarding attached screenshot of Windows Power Profile options in Windows 7)
- Prevent Display from Sleeping perpetually resets the TOP sleep timer. (Display Sleep Timeout)
- Prevent Whole PC from Sleeping perpetually resets the BOTH sleep timers. (PC Sleep Timeout)
I trimmed some messages, edited my last one, and will add this to the documentation - along with the cleanup in the next build. Does it makes sense now and behave as you would expect it to, given this new information? Granted, if I checked something that said 'don't let my displays sleep' and then my PC slept, turning off my displays, I'd be confused too! So, again, it is my fault in not making this distinction clear. In fact, whether the prevent displays from sleeping is even generally useful, I don't know, but its there now - so ...
I believe that it is now working as you outline above so thanks for looking at all this.
But....
Originally I had wanted to prevent the PC from sleeping whilst running some processes Win7 didn't think were important enough to stay awake for; When you added this function I wondered if would be possible to keep the box awake but let the monitor(s) sleep.
You implemented this & I had my perfect PM setup. ;D
Then in the Beta run this functionality broke.
Somewhere along the line the allow monitor to sleep but keep the box awake has switched to keep monitors awake even if box is asleep. Which as you rightly say is something of a questionable option.
Is that a logical assessment from your perspective? ???
Quote from: bertie97 on August 01, 2012, 08:54:35 AM
Originally I had wanted to prevent the PC from sleeping whilst running some processes Win7 didn't think were important enough to stay awake for; When you added this function I wondered if would be possible to keep the box awake but let the monitor(s) sleep.
You implemented this & I had my perfect PM setup. ;D
Ah, I think I see you needed the *inverse* of what I actually offered. Now we are finally beginning to get on the same page. I am sorry, for some reason we've had communication problems, likely my fault. Note that I never implemented anything like that, so it was probably an illusion that any build did that.
This would require a third power option, "Let displays sleep, but keep PC awake". Which is why you were talking about the grammar in the inverse way. I just didn't 'get' what you needed I suppose.
Good news, is *is* possible. I can keep your PC awake, but let your displays sleep. That is the *only* other function possible, so might as well add it. The fourth combination would be impossible (keep display awake, let PC sleep).
So, I will see what I can do.. I'll add it to a beta or test build and let you see if it does what you want ;). It would be '
Allow displays to sleep, but prevent PC from sleeping'.
How about this (finally I get your message ;p)?
QuoteSomewhere along the line the allow monitor to sleep but keep the box awake has switched to keep monitors awake even if box is asleep. Which as you rightly say is something of a questionable option.
And I never implemented this, so want to correct this statement. Whilst confused about what you wanted (maybe because of the v6 final pressure and haste), this obviously makes no sense ;p. Now, keeping the displays from sleeping UNTIL the PC is set to sleep might be useful to *somebody*, so I will keep it. See screenshot in previous message for early development of new (and last) anti-sleep option. I think I FINALLY have you covered.
I very much apologize for miscommunicating. I just didn't get what you want, maybe skimmed.. But, you politely beat it into my head, and I thank you for that ;)
I have also fixed the bug that prevented removal of these settings from within the anti-sleep configuration dialog. Thanks again Bertie!
Fix is in v6.0.0.69 beta and above.
Sorry for giving you all this extra work!!! ::)
I am sure the excitement with the important core components of v6 were responsible for the miscommunication. I know PM isn't what PL is fundamentally about, but this feature does solve a huge irritation (for me at least :) ).
Looking at how you have had to apply some lateral logic in the implementation of this gives one an indication of the reason why it would be easy to go off on a different tack. Windows loves being illogical & it wants everyone to follow suit! ;D
I can see that the net result is some useful PM options, for which I am very grateful (& I expect I will not be the only one!)
I look forward to trying them out when they are ready. ;)
Thanks for the allocation of your time to this during a busy period in PLs life-cycle.
It is no problem, and I actually feel really bad for misunderstanding what you wanted. I am always so overwhelmed, taking time to slow down is important - as this demonstrates.
Also, I wish I could say I had finished implementation in .69 beta, but I just worked on the GUI .. the next final should FINALLY have you the feature you need :).
Implementation now complete in core engine. Still needs tested, but just an update. Not yet released.
I am still working (so much to do it is unreal) so have NOT yet tested or reviewed the code, but TEST builds are here:
32-bit: http://bitsum.com/files/test/prolasso.zip
64-bit: http://bitsum.com/files/test/prolasso64.zip
I am going to try to stay awake all night and finish the new final if possible, or get very close to it.
You realize that all this implies your personal power management may need tweaking now, (i.e. body clock-wise) :)
I know what you mean about sticking with it tho, sometimes sleeping kills the focus.
- Win7 (& possibly 8 ) take note!
I did the upgrade to .71 & noticed the dialog entries had changed (allow display to sleep keep PC awake had appeared) then when I reopened the dialog that entry had disappeared. To the point where I thought I'd imagined it. :o
It is now back to the Keep display awake or keep PC awake format....
I guess I should get some screen recording s/w so at least I can prove to myself I hadn't imagined it.
Could this be ini related? Maybe I'll try a clean install...
Thanks again for the effort on this. Everything is feeling much smoother with these 6.x builds. 8)
***
Update -
I decided to completely uninstall/reinstall, (& I am happy to say the process went smoothly & my key was revalidated without any issues.).
I had saved the old ini before nuking it all so I have been able to compare the 2 files.
I have found the AllowDisplaysPreventPC wasn't a mirage. :D
It will no longer appear in the PL GUI however. With all files & logs erased that is a bit of a puzzle because I obviously did see it the very first time I opened the dialog.... ::)
I find that manually editing the ini allows the feature to be displayed in the GUI No Sleep dialog.
But only until I close it, the next time I open it the display has reverted to the old statement 'prevent display'.
Closing the dialog at this point returns the ini entry to the display= .exe from the AllowDisplaysPreventPC= .exe setting.
(Hope that is a clear description!)
So I have manually added my exe's to the necessary point in the ini & will see how it works if I avoid opening the no sleep dialog.
I have not completely merged the old & new ini's so I will be playing around with it a bit more now & will report back. ;)
So if you right click on a process you don't see 3 options now with .71beta ?
I have not tested but see these in the pop up menu .
(http://bitsum.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1363.0;attach=311)
The right click function is there it is the selection via the configure no sleep dialog (Via Options->) that I am referring to.
Sorry I should have specified that the selections are present in that RC option.
I was totally focused on the behaviour outlined above & watching the ini change... :P
Now all fixed up and operating correctly, here is what it will look like in the FINAL I'm about to issue in a few hours .... My big regret is obviously not having this right on v6 final. It was a quick addition and I paid more attention to the process context menu items than anything else. This will be in (most likely) v6.0.0.74 final.
The caption is a bit 'off', but I likely won't correct it this build because of the translations.
As for the setting in the INI file - Yes, it doesn't appear until it is used. For better or worse, this is how it was designed. I can change it if desired. Many settings are like that.
Note during code review I fixed a bug in this last beta pointed out by Ed - the dialog could save the type of sleep wrong. This will be fixed in the final I'm about to issue.
Quote from: bitsum.support on August 05, 2012, 08:16:58 AM
Note during code review I fixed a bug in this last beta pointed out by Ed - the dialog could save the type of sleep wrong. This will be fixed in the final I'm about to issue.
pointed out by Ed ??? You mean it wasn't me watching the ini update itself mysteriously throughout those long hours? Damn PL mirages!
Actually it is kinda funny I got hooked by the Dialog behaviour when I find the RMB functions so cool now....
The ini processing is fine & it is logical in operation esp. when one is watching it! Made it easier to follow that the ''bug' was dialog & not Right-Click related.
Currently (.73) the GUI still likes to juggle the setting but now it's only the dialog which seems to displays a wrong text value, the actual ini remains ok & RC shows the 'check' in the correct position.
All seems to function as I require so I am happy that it was able to be resolved.
& I will be playing
watch the dialog again shortly :D
Given this is a late 'bolt-on' rather than part of the core PL theatre of operations, I'd say the time-frame of the extra debugging etc has been good. & I can't see this as being an issue when so much else is good.
If anything this little debacle' has instilled greater confidence in your product & your ability as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: bertie97 on August 05, 2012, 09:54:39 AM
Currently (.73) the GUI still likes to juggle the setting but now it's only the dialog which seems to displays a wrong text value, the actual ini remains ok & RC shows the 'check' in the correct position.
Yep, that was exactly the bug Bertie ;).
I'm glad it has instilled more confidence. Honestly, there are a lot of developers who are more concerned about image than they are about functionality. I mean, they will 'deny, deny, deny', then quietly fix ;p. Myself, I may go too far in the other direction at times - lol. I am very happy you brought this whole thing to my attention because it *finally* delivers what was promised in version 6 - improvements of the No Sleep controls. Many XP users use these I'm sure as the automated power profile management is not available in anything below Vista (Microsoft rewrote the entire power management subsystem, so I made a decision to support only the newer rendition).
Anyway, I have made some last minute changes to some Vista+ related code so am having to do lots of new testing here, but still anticipate the final to come here in a few hours or sooner. As soon as I get these new changes just right (they involve Process Lasso's self-restart on elevation configuration changes).
Everything should be good in the final now issued, but if there is a problem, don't hesitate to let me know. Likewise, if it all goes well, then that's great too ;). I did make those string adjustments at the last minute, but tested them decently - so everything *should* be good.
I have read this thread from the beginning, but I don't get it.
I am on XP, and I don't see any benefit in using this feature for me.
I have a desktop which runs 24 hrs, and when I go to bed at night, I just switch of the monitor.
So, forgive me if this a dumb post.
P.S. I missed the v.6.0.0.75 beta, it must have been shortlived. ;)
Things are behaving as I would like them to now. Thanks for all the coding!
No more swearing at the monitor for being on or cursing at the box for being off! ;D
QuoteI have read this thread from the beginning, but I don't get it.
A lot of Win7 users have PM issues (Like me) where the PM doesn't do what it should & refuses to recognize/obey certain processes.
If you actually don't want (or need) PM then you won't need these features.
But like a lot of things within PL, this provides options.
That is something Win can be terribly short of....
Decided to resurrect this thread as it seems pertinent (...to me at least!) ;)
Just found 6.5.0.0 is showing the anti sleep process activating & shutting down but it won't allow the monitor to sleep with the disallow PC allow monitor sleep setting.
I am going to experiment a bit with regular full sleep just in case the issue is a bit more widespread. i.e. all my anti-sleep settings may be knocked out...
Looks like PM works normally but PLs allow display to sleep function is acting as a full stay awake option.
No sleep of any kind is allowed in this state. ???
Trying 6.5.0.5b & my display does sleep yet.
thanks, I will evaluate this and respond.
Now on 6.5.0.11b - no change - system will sleep but monitor ill not respond to the monitor only sleep instruction.
The whole system stays awake when selected processes are running. So it's positive but no cigar. ;)
I see you changed the tags on the settings drop-down. Nearly had me confused ... :D
Quote from: bertie97 on May 28, 2013, 05:55:29 AM
Now on 6.5.0.11b - no change - system will sleep but monitor ill not respond to the monitor only sleep instruction.
The whole system stays awake when selected processes are running. So it's positive but no cigar. ;)
I see you changed the tags on the settings drop-down. Nearly had me confused ... :D
Yes, I'm still evaluating this issue, and am in the process of changing those strings to something more comprehensible. I should have some news on this very soon.
I have determined the problem and patched it up. The fix will be in v6.5.0.13 beta and later.
OK thanks for your diligence ;)
6.5.0.20 & the monitor sleeps again :)
(http://i40.tinypic.com/1se5qu.gif)
Hence the celebration ;D
lol, the insomnia of the Monitor is cured. ;)
But you also wake him out to post this post and the celebration. ;D
Thanks for reporting back!
I've been really trying to do a lot better with QA the last couple months.. so much more committed to it than ever before.