• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

CPU Usage...100%

R

Rod Davies

#1
Mmmm....SEEMS to be

SearchFilterHost.exe s
earchprotocolhost.exe and
searchindexer.exe

taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I have
running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole gadgets!!!)

....So...CAN I STOP those processes in Task Manager?

Rgds
Rod
 

My Computer

J

John Barnes

#2
Yes, but you will have the indexing finish after a period of time, depending
on what you have set up to index. Why not just make them low priority tasks
where they won't interfere with anything else you are doing and let them
finish their tasks.


"Rod Davies" <ldavies@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message
news:C85B0D1D-908D-45A1-92AB-E58676D63972@microsoft.com...
> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>
> SearchFilterHost.exe s
> earchprotocolhost.exe and
> searchindexer.exe
>
> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
> gadgets!!!)
>
> ...So...CAN I STOP those processes in Task Manager?
>
> Rgds
> Rod
>
 

My Computer

A

Alun Harford

#3
Rod Davies wrote:
> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>
> SearchFilterHost.exe s
> earchprotocolhost.exe and
> searchindexer.exe
>
> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
> gadgets!!!)


Is the system responsive?

Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on
your computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them back!

If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.

Alun Harford
 

My Computer

J

John Barnes

#4
Some with poor cooling setups could cause overheating of the CPU at 100% for
a long period of time but that is the only reason for any caution. :-)

"Alun Harford" <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O7LUBCciHHA.4976@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Rod Davies wrote:
>> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>>
>> SearchFilterHost.exe s
>> earchprotocolhost.exe and
>> searchindexer.exe
>>
>> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
>> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
>> gadgets!!!)

>
> Is the system responsive?
>
> Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on your
> computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them back!
>
> If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.
>
> Alun Harford
 

My Computer

A

Adam Albright

#5
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:09:54 +0100, Alun Harford
<devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote:

>Rod Davies wrote:
>> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>>
>> SearchFilterHost.exe s
>> earchprotocolhost.exe and
>> searchindexer.exe
>>
>> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
>> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
>> gadgets!!!)

>
>Is the system responsive?
>
>Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on
>your computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them back!
>
>If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.
>
>Alun Harford


To follow your "logic" you are implying if CPU useage shows 100% or
close to it then whatever applications you're using are maximizing
your computer's resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is a common misconception. The proper way to look at CPU useage
is to judge how efficently your computer is running.

An anology would be trying to pull a large trailer up a steep hill
with your 1960's VW bettle. You would likey need to floor the gas
pedal and if lucky you may be able to get up the grade with the engine
huffing, puffing and straining under the load. If your VW had a
resource meter it would be showing close to 100% useage but you as the
driver sure wouldn't feel you car was working really well, in fact
you're be worried if you're make it up the hill at all.

Same with computers. If it takes nearly all your resources to do the
tasks you are trying to do, then your computer is straining and likely
it's response will be sluggish with telltale signs, like applications
very slow to load, images taking for ever to show up or get redrawn on
screen, long delays between pressing a key on your keyboard and seeing
that character appear on screen, etc..

This should not be confused with smarter applications taking more
resources if they are not being used, but giving them back gracefully
if other applications are started up.

For example I use Sony's Vegas (a video editor) a lot. If running by
itself it will "hog" about 95% of CPU cycles, however it doesn't need
anywhere near that much, and if I start up my newsreader, word
processor, open a spread sheet and play a some Mp3 file all while
Vegas is still rendering a video, it will continue, but at a somewhat
slower rate with the resource meter hardly changing, yet the demands
on the system are not considerablly greater.

What can compound the value of such "meters" is what is verses what
can be accomplished in a given CPU cycle. Some things need to be
handed off, other tasks do not, for example to a CPU's math co
processor routines. Also some applications as well as interaction by
Windows itself will impact how agressive a paging file is being used,
page faults generated, etc.. So a computer showing only 60% CPU usage
often is running more efficiantly then one running close to 100%. It
all depends WHAT it is doing.
 

My Computer

A

Alun Harford

#6
Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:09:54 +0100, Alun Harford
> <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Rod Davies wrote:
>>> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>>>
>>> SearchFilterHost.exe s
>>> earchprotocolhost.exe and
>>> searchindexer.exe
>>>
>>> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
>>> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
>>> gadgets!!!)

>> Is the system responsive?
>>
>> Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on
>> your computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them back!
>>
>> If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.

>
> To follow your "logic" you are implying if CPU useage shows 100% or
> close to it then whatever applications you're using are maximizing
> your computer's resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> This is a common misconception. The proper way to look at CPU useage
> is to judge how efficently your computer is running.


That's putting an awful lot of words in my mouth!

I'm saying that CPU cycles have no value if they're not used.

Alun Harford
 

My Computer

J

John Barnes

#7
:-) And right you are. A well written program should be able to fully and
efficiently use whatever machine cycles are available to get its tasks done
in the shortest time. It is up to the OS to allocate the available machine
cycles based on the cumulative demand of the currently running processes
requests.

"Alun Harford" <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u07tEDdiHHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Adam Albright wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:09:54 +0100, Alun Harford
>> <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Davies wrote:
>>>> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>>>>
>>>> SearchFilterHost.exe s
>>>> earchprotocolhost.exe and
>>>> searchindexer.exe
>>>>
>>>> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
>>>> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
>>>> gadgets!!!)
>>> Is the system responsive?
>>>
>>> Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on
>>> your computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them
>>> back!
>>>
>>> If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.

>>
>> To follow your "logic" you are implying if CPU useage shows 100% or
>> close to it then whatever applications you're using are maximizing
>> your computer's resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>> This is a common misconception. The proper way to look at CPU useage
>> is to judge how efficently your computer is running.

>
> That's putting an awful lot of words in my mouth!
>
> I'm saying that CPU cycles have no value if they're not used.
>
> Alun Harford
 

My Computer

R

Rod Davies

#8
....so, to my original query...when I installed Vista and ran Vista for 4
weeks, my CPU, running EXACTLY programs to what I am running now, was always
at around 40-60% (it DID vary)....but its been hard on a constant 100% for
3 days (non continuous use)....

.....ah......and AS I type this the meter has dropped to 5-7%
.................and is staying there

I find it odd

Rgds
Rod
Perth

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:ee%23Zm4diHHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> :-) And right you are. A well written program should be able to fully and
> efficiently use whatever machine cycles are available to get its tasks
> done in the shortest time. It is up to the OS to allocate the available
> machine cycles based on the cumulative demand of the currently running
> processes requests.
>
> "Alun Harford" <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:u07tEDdiHHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Adam Albright wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:09:54 +0100, Alun Harford
>>> <devnull@alunharford.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rod Davies wrote:
>>>>> Mmmm....SEEMS to be
>>>>>
>>>>> SearchFilterHost.exe s
>>>>> earchprotocolhost.exe and
>>>>> searchindexer.exe
>>>>>
>>>>> taking a lot of the CPU useage...it's STILL running at 100% when ALL I
>>>>> have running are WinMail, Task Manager and Sidebar (with 3 whole
>>>>> gadgets!!!)
>>>> Is the system responsive?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to get low CPU usage is madness - you don't get a discount on
>>>> your computer for not using clock cycles, and you'll never get them
>>>> back!
>>>>
>>>> If the system isn't responsive, I'd set their priority to low.
>>>
>>> To follow your "logic" you are implying if CPU useage shows 100% or
>>> close to it then whatever applications you're using are maximizing
>>> your computer's resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>> This is a common misconception. The proper way to look at CPU useage
>>> is to judge how efficently your computer is running.

>>
>> That's putting an awful lot of words in my mouth!
>>
>> I'm saying that CPU cycles have no value if they're not used.
>>
>> Alun Harford

>
 

My Computer

S

Steve Thackery

#9
Rod, I think this is probably normal and nothing to worry about. As has
been said here already, high CPU utilisation is only a problem if it's
making the machine unresponsive in other tasks.

And if that is the case, then reduce the priority of the CPU hungry threads.

Steve
 

My Computer

A

Alun Harford

#10
Rod Davies wrote:
> ....so, to my original query...when I installed Vista and ran Vista for
> 4 weeks, my CPU, running EXACTLY programs to what I am running now, was
> always at around 40-60% (it DID vary)....but its been hard on a
> constant 100% for 3 days (non continuous use)....
>
> .....ah......and AS I type this the meter has dropped to 5-7%
> .................and is staying there
>
> I find it odd


Vista indexes the files on your hard drives (so that searching is
quick), and this uses CPU time. When it finishes (making the first index
takes a long time, as it has to index Windows and any third party apps
you installed when you set up your computer) the CPU usage drops.
I believe it runs low priority, so that it only runs when nothing else
is using the CPU.

Alun Harford
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)