| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3368.1 | crash and burn | SMAUG::SPODARYK | Binary Throttle | Sat Jan 20 1990 13:53 | 16 |
| This is a very neat utility, I wish DECwindows had a counterpart.
Unfortunely, I believe there is a bug/timing problem, of some kind
when trying to change a priority. When using the A2620, I seriously
hang (no GURU even) my system about 50% of the time when changing
a priority. When using the 68010, it's only hangs about 5% of the
time.
Now, it seems unlikely that the authors would release this software
with such a serious problem... but how could it be related to my
hardware?
Anyone else had these symptoms?
~Steve
|
| 3368.2 | artm isn't bad at all. | UBEAUT::MANDERSON | Monday oneday, Tuesday the next | Sun Jan 21 1990 16:30 | 17 |
| I was running Dclock and used ARTM to kill it. After that every
second the screen would do it's orange beep (but no guru)......
Apparently there is a hook or ast or something somewhere to trigger the
Dclock process but since it had gone away.... Haven't tried that one
again:-}.
yes I like artm.
There is also a thing (called PM) similar to "moni sys" on the VAX
except it is a moving graph (was one of several utilities from many FF
ago - can't remember the number) but it has some display problems and
the "cpu free" part bleeds into the "chip ram" part of the display. it
is interesting to track cpu usage though. Will check what FF it came
from if any interest - or can someone else remember.
regards
kevin
|
| 3368.3 | | DICKNS::MACDONALD | WA1OMM 7.093/145.05/223.58 AX.25 | Sun Jan 21 1990 19:16 | 7 |
| I like ARTM, although it is V0.9. This sort of implies a Beta version.
It is similar in functionality to XOPER, but is definitely easier to use
and has a friendlier interface.
Now, wonder if we'll see V1.0 from our friends across the pond?
-Paul
|
| 3368.4 | PM is nice | MAN02::KRAUSS | | Mon Jan 22 1990 03:40 | 11 |
| re .2
PM was distributed by C= on the Extras 1.3 disk here in Germany.
I like this utility very much and I start it with RUNBACK every
time during startup.
I know the problem with the CPU-free peaks but I don't know how
to solve it. It appears only with my GVP030.
(Could be a cache problem!)
regards
Michael
|
| 3368.5 | TASK performance monitor? | PAMSRC::XHOST::BARRETT | Keith Barrett; DECmessageQ Expertise Cntr | Tue Sep 24 1991 12:50 | 6 |
| What exists to determine which tasks on your system are using a large percentage
of the CPU? All the ones I look at (ARTM, XOPER, MONITOR, etc) have displays
that list the tasks and their current state, other programs (PM) show you
OVERALL system performance, but nothing I find shows the percentage of the
cpu taken by specific tasks. I'd like something like the VMS MONITOR SYS or
(better yet) MON PROC/TOPCPU.
|
| 3368.6 | Are you sure about xoper? | ELMST::MCAFEE | Steve McAfee | Tue Sep 24 1991 13:39 | 13 |
| xoper does show you the percentage of time consumed for that task. It
gets updated every so often. It is essentially equivalent to MON
PROC/TOPCPU near as I can tell. Except it shows you all the tasks
rather than just the running ones from largest percentage down. Maybe
I'm using a newer version of xoper... I think I've got 2.something.
I know it does this because I wrote my own tiny clock program a while
back and I wanted to see how much time it was consuming. I know lots
of clock programs out there, but I wanted a small one which used my
2.0 screen font and used very little cpu time. The CBM supplied clock
in 2.04 is still a memory and cpu pig even though it finally looks nice.
-steve
|
| 3368.7 | | PAMSRC::XHOST::BARRETT | I will not instigate revolution | Tue Sep 24 1991 16:57 | 4 |
| Re: -.1
OK, I'll take a 2nd look at Xoper; It's been a while since I used it
so you are probably right. Sounds like it does have what I want.
|
| 3368.8 | | TENAYA::MWM | | Wed Sep 25 1991 16:37 | 11 |
| Beware - Xoper lies about CPU usage. If you have something that's interrupt
driven, and uses less than a scheduler tick before giving up the cpu, it
will be credited with the entire tick.
AmigaDOS doesn't keep enough information around to give accurate CPU usage
information. There are hooks that could be used to collect such information,
but I don't know of anything that actually uses them.
<mike
|