 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / May 2005Mysteriously Heavy CPU Useage
I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU usage as indicated by both CeePeeYou and ActivityMonitor. I went to Accounts and shut all the Startup items down, which seemed to help. One of the possible culprits is AliasMenu. However, with just about everything else shut down I was still getting heavy usage from certain items: tr, csh, find [all owned by "nobody"] update, kernal_task, find, pmTool, [all owned by "root"] After a while these settled down, as if whatever they were doing was sorted out. Can anyone give me a quick explanation of what these processes are and what they do? Has anyone else seen any activities that seem to be CPU hogs on 10.4. Running: Machine Name: PowerMacG3series [B&W] Machine Model: PowerMac1,1 CPU Type: PowerPC 60? (2.1) Number Of CPUs: 1 CPU Speed: 1.00 GHz [Sonnet G4] Memory: 1 GB BTW, this is also occurring on a Graphite G4 (PCI,1GHz Sonnet G4) Thanks, > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Thanks, Is it possible that what you are seeing is Spotlight indexing your drive? I haven't installed Tiger yet, so I don't know how much CPU usage the initial indexing takes. Hopefully, I will receive my copy of Tiger from our campus bookstore today or tomorrow. -- Dave Fritzinger Barbarossa wrote: > > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU > > usage as indicated by both CeePeeYou and ActivityMonitor. > Is it possible that what you are seeing is Spotlight indexing > your drive? I haven't installed Tiger yet, so I don't know how > much CPU usage the initial indexing takes. Hopefully, I will > receive my copy of Tiger from our campus bookstore today or > tomorrow. No, I saw 'Spotlight' indexing with the first (auto) restart after the install. Honestly, the OS wanted me to do too many thing at the same time: import my mail, index the drive, &c. I wish that it would do things in some sort of order to avoid overtaxing the older, yet still supported CPUs. In this case the heavy usage came afterwards, when the Spotlight indexing had finished; indeed, on the second and third days. After seeing this on three Macs (all older G4s, some upgraded) I would say that the newer and faster the Mac, the easier and faster the install. > In this case the heavy usage came afterwards, when the > Spotlight indexing had finished; indeed, on the second and third > days. After seeing this on three Macs (all older G4s, some > upgraded) I would say that the newer and faster the Mac, the > easier and faster the install. Run Activity Monitor and click on the "% CPU" column header. You should see the process consuming that much CPU cycles on top now. This should shed some light on that phenomen. Jochem  Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, but after > installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU usage as indicated [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Has anyone else seen any activities that seem to be CPU hogs on 10.4. > ... I don't find a whole lot of hogging... but "find" is typically run as part of the system's maintenance scripts. Specifically for rebuilding the locate database. This is typically done in the middle of the night (around 2 AM). If it chugs for 1-5 minutes and then calms, just let it be. UNIX is supposed to do that. If it goes on for 30+ minutes, something fishy is afoot. > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Has anyone else seen any activities that seem to be CPU hogs > on 10.4. Check Spotlight. It might simply be doing its indexing. If that's the case, rebooting your Mac should reign in Spotlight the next time it starts. > > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If that's the case, rebooting your Mac should reign in > Spotlight the next time it starts. Virex is known to do the same thing ... > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU > usage as indicated by both CeePeeYou and ActivityMonitor. [snip] > Has anyone else seen any activities that seem to be CPU hogs > on 10.4? > > Running: > Machine Name: PowerMacG3series [B&W] > CPU Speed: 1.00 GHz [Sonnet G4] > BTW, this is also occurring on a Graphite G4 (PCI,1GHz Sonnet G4) Notice that both Macs have Sonnet G4 CPU upgrades. I checked at <http"//www.sonnettech.com> and found: http://www.sonnettech.com/downloads/proc_upgrds_sw.html#sonnetcach e [Watch the wrap] ... an upgrade for the CPU cache for Tiger. Things seem to be back to normal now. > > I usually have a number Apps in my startup folder, > > but after installing 10.4 I have been getting a very high CPU [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > [Watch the wrap] Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. > ... an upgrade for the CPU cache for Tiger. Things seem to be > back to normal now. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF Barbarossa <whewitt@ucsd.edu> wrote: > > <http://www.sonnettech.com/downloads/proc_upgrds_sw.html#sonn > > etcach e> > > > > [Watch the wrap] > Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. The URL may be enclosed, but it still gets wrapped in 'MT-NW 3.4.' Signature________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________ Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu > Barbarossa <whewitt@ucsd.edu> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The URL may be enclosed, but it still gets wrapped Yeah, but command clicking on it in 'MT-NW 3.4' will pass the full URL to the browser, wrapped or not, if it's enclosed. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > > Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. > > > > The URL may be enclosed, but it still gets wrapped > > Yeah, but command clicking on it in 'MT-NW 3.4' will pass the full URL > to the browser, wrapped or not, if it's enclosed. Agreed, except I think you mean Option-Click. > > > > Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Agreed, except I think you mean Option-Click. Right you are. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF In article <tomstiller-3DC7AB.13021404052005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, > > > Yeah, but command clicking on it in 'MT-NW 3.4' will pass the full URL > > > to the browser, wrapped or not, if it's enclosed. > > > > Agreed, except I think you mean Option-Click. > > Right you are. Great Googley Moogley! And I've been highlighting and Command-Clicking all these years! Is this Option-Click thingy something relatively new? Signature________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________ Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu > In article > <tomstiller-3DC7AB.13021404052005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Command-Clicking all these years! Is this Option-Click thingy > something relatively new? Well, I just looked and the Help message for "Opening URLs" in MT-NW 3.4 says command (i.e., Apple key) plus click. But I stumbled onto Option-Click (just a single click, anywhere within the URL) as an alternative method some time back, and it seems to work very reliably, earlier in OS 9.2, now in 10.3.9. I _think_ it even works with URLS that are line-wrapped, and maybe even with line wrapping plus ">" markers inserted -- but I'll let someone else test this out. > > Great Googley Moogley! And I've been highlighting and Command-Clicking > > all these years! Is this Option-Click thingy something relatively new? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with line wrapping plus ">" markers inserted -- but I'll let someone > else test this out. No, if the URL is line-wrapped, you must highlight the whole URL before you option-click or right-click (both work). If the URL is enclosed in angle brackets, you can just option-click or right-click anywhere in the URL. I think the URL also needs the "http://" prefix to ensure MT-NW will recognize it, but I'm not sure. (It's a little hard to test because MT-NW's URL-clicking doesn't work quite the same in a message composition window as it does when reading a message.) In article <wayne.morris-5DD874.18375304052005@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>, [...] > I think the URL also needs the "http://" > prefix to ensure MT-NW will recognize it, but I'm not sure. Well, yes, without a protocol specifier it isn't a URL. The best an app can do in that case is guess which protocol might apply. (In practice, those who leave it ought usually mean "http", so most of the time an app will happen to guess right.) SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > > > > Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. > > > > > > The URL may be enclosed, but it still gets wrapped. > > > > Yeah, but command clicking on it in 'MT-NW 3.4' will pass the full URL > > to the browser, wrapped or not, if it's enclosed. > Agreed, except I think you mean Option-Click. No, it 's Command-Click, with the URL highlighted. However, if the URL has the carrots: > > > dividing it up in the wrap it won't work. <http://www.sonnettech.com/downloads/proc_upgrds_sw.html#sonnetcac he> will work, but: > > <http://www.sonnettech.com/downloads/proc_upgrds_sw.html#sonn > > etcach e> won't. One may have to just Cut, Snip, & Paste. Signature________B___a___r___b___a___r___o___s___s___a________ Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whewitt@ucsd.edu > > > > Enclose URLs in <> to protect against wrapping. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Agreed, except I think you mean Option-Click. Actually, it's both. MT-NW doesn't care whether you command-click or right-click on the URL, both keystrokes do the same thing. http://www.tinyurl.com problems go away :-) > http://www.tinyurl.com > > problems go away I won't click one from work, and I won't click one from someone I don't know and trust. If you choose to post a tinyurl for people who can't be bothered to deal with line wrap, that's fine, but please post the real URL or whatever you're posting won't get seen by many people. >> http://www.tinyurl.com >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be bothered to deal with line wrap, that's fine, but please post > the real URL or whatever you're posting won't get seen by many people. A "real" URL is not necessarily any safer, and could also be a redirect. However, this tinyurl is entirely safe since it is just the TinyURL.com homepage - I wonder where it was supposed to lead? SignatureIan Gregory http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/ >>> http://www.tinyurl.com >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A "real" URL is not necessarily any safer, and could also be a > redirect. Right, but you _know_ a tinyurl is an obfuscated redirect. > However, this tinyurl is entirely safe since it is just > the TinyURL.com homepage Yes, obviously, but the solution is imperfect for reasons I mentioned. Seems like a lot of fuss for people who can't handle line wrap. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.