Divide CPU-percentage of multiple instances as one whole

[Coldblackice]

Could we get the ability to have WatchDog consider multiple instances of the same program as a single "pie" of CPU percentage? Similar to the option to divide CPU% by total CPU count.

In other words, if I have 10 instances of example.exe running, and together they're using 75% CPU, then WatchDog would trip and flag the process. Of course, this leaves the question -- which one of the process instances receives the "punishment" by WatchDog? Good question. Perhaps the most recent offender? Highest PID? The one with the current highest usage? Highest average usage?

The issue here is that programs are sometimes limited to a single core, so the highest CPU percentage they can use is ~13% (in system with 8 logical cores).

Thoughts?

[edkiefer]

I am not sure on this one, but Just to remind Probalance by default is set for 23% total CPU usage and 13% per process trigger point for restraint .
Edit: per processes is 15% not 13% on mine .

[chris635]

I am not sure on this one, but Just to remind Probalance by default is set for 23% total CPU usage and 13% per process trigger point for restraint .

Mine comes out of the box with 11% total system wide cpu usage. On my other desktop it's 45%. On my old laptop it's 75%.

[edkiefer]

Ok , Maybe it sets default  starting value depending on system setup .
I have quad core i5-3570k but I "think" my 2.13ghz dual was same, but I would have to check .

[chris635]

Mine are different AMD chips.

[edkiefer]

Yes, Just to confirm , the values depend on HW installed in system .

[Coldblackice]

Yes, Just to confirm , the values depend on HW installed in system .

When you say values, are you referring to the values of of max CPU-usage per-process (outside Process Lasso), or do you mean the the trigger-value of when ProBalance kicks in?

It'd probably help if we each clarified our system/CPU specs/architecture/platform. I'm on an Intel i7 930 2.8Ghz @ 4.25Ghz; 1x CPU --> 4x physical cores --> 8 logical cores (hyperthreaded)

Thus, because a thread can't be split across more than one core, the highest CPU percentage a single-threaded executable can reach (on my system) is ~13%, because: 100% / 8(cores) = ~13%. This will be different for other CPUs, architectures, systems.


The issue is when some programs are able to open additional, multiple instances of themselves, able to take advantage of more cores, and thus, more overall CPU-usage -- however -- ProcessLasso currently can't detect this since WatchDog only tracks CPU-usage on a per-executable basis.

That's why I'm wondering if it'd be possible to add an option to tally CPU-usage based on executable name rather than PID. Or perhaps like ProcessExplorer, which shows "Tree CPU usage", tallying current CPU-usage of all sub-programs/threads spawned from any particular program.

Chrome and Internet Explorer are currently the biggest culprits in this, and soon Firefox will be, too, with Electrolysis/e10s.

[edkiefer]

Right, I just meant the per processes cpu % trigger point (from  PL.ini , PerProcessUsageBeforeRestraint= )  depends on CPU type , single core, dual, quad etc .
the more cores the lower the value will be .

As for rest of your question , Jeremy would have to chime in when he gets a chance .

[Jeremy Collake]

Yes, I can do that, let me put some thought into it and see what I can work out in v9, which will be massively improved all-around.

Also on my list as a module I'm calling the 'Instance Manager'. It will let you decide how multiple instances of a single process get treated. More information to come.

Thank you for the feature request and I'll comment more ASAP. Right now I'm running around like a chicken with my head cut off, getting ParkControl Pro to v1.0, planning Lasso v9, and the usual zillion things. The good news is the new website is fully operational now and taking orders, so I'm back to product dev full time. Of course, Stewart is the man who is responsible for the new site, but it was a distracting matter for me as well, as I had to make it all work, e.g. the new licenses and server infrastructure.

[Coldblackice]

Yes, I can do that, let me put some thought into it and see what I can work out in v9, which will be massively improved all-around.

Also on my list as a module I'm calling the 'Instance Manager'. It will let you decide how multiple instances of a single process get treated. More information to come.

Thank you for the feature request and I'll comment more ASAP. Right now I'm running around like a chicken with my head cut off, getting ParkControl Pro to v1.0, planning Lasso v9, and the usual zillion things. The good news is the new website is fully operational now and taking orders, so I'm back to product dev full time. Of course, Stewart is the man who is responsible for the new site, but it was a distracting matter for me as well, as I had to make it all work, e.g. the new licenses and server infrastructure.

Sounds great, and I appreciate your chiming in, as always -- one of the most active/responsive developers and projects that I know! I'm looking forward to the continued evolution of PL!

[Jeremy Collake]

This feature was finally added BTW, see the 'Instance Balancer': https://bitsum.com/product-update/processlasso-v901/

[Coldblackice]

This feature was finally added BTW, see the 'Instance Balancer': https://bitsum.com/product-update/processlasso-v901/

Thanks! It's awesome, much appreciated.