Started by bertie97, August 10, 2012, 02:23:15 PM
QuoteIn the end, Process Lasso requires a certain level of user sophistication to tweak, but not to 'simply use'. That's why I discourage changing the defaults unless people know precisely what they are doing.
QuoteI hate the XP scheduler, never use it, and regularly remove or disable tasks that insert themselves into the scheduler (the Task Scheduler service itself is set to "Manual start" on my system (not the Automatic Updates notifier, the Task Scheduler)), so I'm happy to see that you're aware of needing to do it a different way on XP.
QuoteIn computer science, scheduling is the method by which threads, processes or data flows are given access to system resources (e.g. processor time, communications bandwidth). This is usually done to load balance a system effectively or achieve a target quality of service. The need for a scheduling algorithm arises from the requirement for most modern systems to perform multitasking (execute more than one process at a time) and multiplexing (transmit multiple flows simultaneously).
Quote from: bertie97 on August 31, 2012, 06:06:40 AMGratifying as it is to see my original question blossom into the monstrous triffid I see before me... I am still kinda wondering about the 0-50-100% gradations, what was 0 again? Allow ''all'' to be parked?
Quote from: bitsum.support on August 31, 2012, 12:57:01 PMAnd for the record '0' is considered an invalid value (as all cores can't be parked) and thus causes a return to default (which varies).
QuoteI still have more tests to run to determine if 'maximum parking' is the default
QuoteSo, one thing on my todo list is to reverse engineer what this setting does, and continue research on CPU parking in Windows on various CPUs, and the effect of such.
Quoteso I am skeptical it has any additional impact on core thrashing.
Quoteit wants to park them *quick*. This results in a high frequency of sleep/wake cycles.
Quote from: BenYeeHua on August 31, 2012, 06:06:41 PMWhy we get a slower fix of scheduler for Bulldozer in Windows, but more quickly in Linux?
QuoteThe entire linux community is very against maintaining support for legacy applications and systems, they toss them out so fast I can't keep up at times.
Quote4. When disabling CPU Parking, I strongly recommend using ParkControl or Process Lasso's ProBalance over manual registry edits. They do it the 'right way'.
Quote5. Any beneficial impact on a reduction in core thrashing has not been demonstrated, to my knowledge and experience.
Quote6. Too little information and guidance has been provided by Microsoft.
QuoteI will release a compiled list of default parking behaviors of Windows on various systems as soon as it is available. The utilities used to collect this information must be developed, and may be of benefit to our users in determining the proper level of CPU Parking, or potentially the aggressiveness at which is applied (the mysterious new setting I alluded to).
Quote... and what I've done (just now) is add a 'slider control' to ParkControl, as a compliment to the confusing integers. The fact that Microsoft made the integers inverse of what is intuitive makes this a necessary addition. That way you can slide it from minimum parking (100) to maximum parking (0).
Quote from: bitsum.support on August 31, 2012, 08:37:38 PM... and what I've done (just now) is add a 'slider control' to ParkControl, as a compliment to the confusing integers. The fact that Microsoft made the integers inverse of what is intuitive makes this a necessary addition. That way you can slide it from minimum parking (100) to maximum parking (0).
Quote from: bertie97 on September 01, 2012, 11:02:54 AMThat will be a nice touch. Guess I have opened a can of worms again, if it's not the 0s it's the 1s
Quotemy todo list I think has over 1K items
QuoteTherefore, it *might* be possible a beta is issued with the new sliders temporarily non-visible. However you will know they are going to show up shortly.
QuoteI stupidly forgot that I allowed it to be launched from within Process Lasso, hence users would see an error when trying to launch it from within Process Lasso.
QuoteAnother modification allows launching Process Lasso again when it is already running, but not having to see a UAC elevation prompt just to have the old instance invoke its main window.
QuoteYes, that is how it happened to me too ;p.
QuoteThe new launcher is also not ready because I must rewrite some mechanisms due to system security of unelevated processes communicating with elevated processes. I further have to do extensive testing in multi-user environments.