If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system
and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
Augustus wrote:
I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... You can see some of the features that Vista has built in, for scheduling, and Windows 7 should be similar. The question is, whether the Task Manager is really presenting a very good view of what is going on. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...stakernel.aspx Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
Paul wrote:
Augustus wrote: I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... You can see some of the features that Vista has built in, for scheduling, and Windows 7 should be similar. The question is, whether the Task Manager is really presenting a very good view of what is going on. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...stakernel.aspx Paul Some other thoughts that come to mind. 1) On some other OSes I've worked with, file system usage spoils the notion of fair sharing at the user level. For example, if multiple users were logged to a Unix macnine, and one of the users was annoyed with the usage patterns of the other users, they could start a file system intensive task (ls -R), which would compromise everyone's ability to work. File I/O would spend time in the kernel, and the kernel was under no obligation to play nice. 2) Have you played with the "affinity" setting in Task Manager ? Does Vista still have such a notion ? If so, while the virus scan is running, force it to stay on just one core. Then see if the system is more responsive. The affinity setting can be used to prevent process migration, as some older software may not be tuned for such behavior. Some games suffer from issues with migration, and for those, changing the affinity, or using a program launcher (runfirst?) that sets the affinity at launch, can give a measure of relief. 3) Anandtech noted that for HTPC usage, when an AMD processor was used, that movie playback was smoother when Cool N' Quiet was disabled. There was no explanation available at the time, why that caused an issue. Processors can have power states changed something like 30 times a second, in response to system load, and it is supposed to respond fast enough to not cause variable performance at the application level. Yet, the folks at Anandtech did see enough of an issue, to mention it in a review article, and change their test procedure. HTH, Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
Paul wrote:
Augustus wrote: I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... You can see some of the features that Vista has built in, for scheduling, and Windows 7 should be similar. The question is, whether the Task Manager is really presenting a very good view of what is going on. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...stakernel.aspx Paul Some other thoughts that come to mind. 1) On some other OSes I've worked with, file system usage spoils the notion of fair sharing at the user level. For example, if multiple users were logged to a Unix macnine, and one of the users was annoyed with the usage patterns of the other users, they could start a file system intensive task (ls -R), which would compromise everyone's ability to work. File I/O would spend time in the kernel, and the kernel was under no obligation to play nice. 2) Have you played with the "affinity" setting in Task Manager ? Does Vista still have such a notion ? If so, while the virus scan is running, force it to stay on just one core. Then see if the system is more responsive. The affinity setting can be used to prevent process migration, as some older software may not be tuned for such behavior. Some games suffer from issues with migration, and for those, changing the affinity, or using a program launcher (runfirst?) that sets the affinity at launch, can give a measure of relief. 3) Anandtech noted that for HTPC usage, when an AMD processor was used, that movie playback was smoother when Cool N' Quiet was disabled. There was no explanation available at the time, why that caused an issue. Processors can have power states changed something like 30 times a second, in response to system load, and it is supposed to respond fast enough to not cause variable performance at the application level. Yet, the folks at Anandtech did see enough of an issue, to mention it in a review article, and change their test procedure. HTH, Paul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
Paul wrote:
Augustus wrote: I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... You can see some of the features that Vista has built in, for scheduling, and Windows 7 should be similar. The question is, whether the Task Manager is really presenting a very good view of what is going on. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...stakernel.aspx Paul Some other thoughts that come to mind. 1) On some other OSes I've worked with, file system usage spoils the notion of fair sharing at the user level. For example, if multiple users were logged to a Unix machine, and one of the users was annoyed with the usage patterns of the other users, they could start a file system intensive task (ls -R), which would compromise everyone's ability to work. File I/O would spend time in the kernel, and the kernel was under no obligation to play nice. 2) Have you played with the "affinity" setting in Task Manager ? Does Vista still have such a notion ? If so, while the virus scan is running, force it to stay on just one core. Then see if the system is more responsive. The affinity setting can be used to prevent process migration, as some older software may not be tuned for such behavior. Some games suffer from issues with migration, and for those, changing the affinity, or using a program launcher (runfirst?) that sets the affinity at launch, can give a measure of relief. 3) Anandtech noted that for HTPC usage, when an AMD processor was used, that movie playback was smoother when Cool N' Quiet was disabled. There was no explanation available at the time, why that caused an issue. Processors can have power states changed something like 30 times a second, in response to system load, and it is supposed to respond fast enough to not cause variable performance at the application level. Yet, the folks at Anandtech did see enough of an issue, to mention it in a review article, and change their test procedure. HTH, Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
Augustus wrote:
I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... Yeah, it's always the I/O intensive stuff that I have trouble with, even if it's on different drives. Does Windows 7 still effectively lock-up Explorer for a while when you insert a CD or DVD? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why does no iteration of Windows load balance?
In message "Fishface"
was claimed to have wrote: Augustus wrote: I've gone to Windows 7 build 7000 on my E8400@ 3.6Ghz Raptor RAID0 system and I'm very impresssed (this is what Vista should have been, but that's another rant) it doesn't seem to load balance programs any better than previous iterations of Windows. In this respect it's not materially improved over XP. I've never installed Vista but others I know who do use it say the same thing.....poor load balancing by the OS. Running a virus scan, or other background task still impacts the system performance a huge amount, far more than it should. Is this just the OS design or is it common to other OS's running on similar hardware? Why does Windows 2000/ XP/ Vista / 7 act like this? It uses 2 or 4 cores, but does not seem to do it intelligently. I presume Server 2003 or 2008 doesn't behave this way..... Yeah, it's always the I/O intensive stuff that I have trouble with, even if it's on different drives. Vista introduced a disk queue with a priority system, it works reasonably well for things like indexing and defragmenting, but it's not as fantastic as I (for one) had hoped at handling multiple applications fighting over disk access, or worse, one application can still monopolize disk access. Does Windows 7 still effectively lock-up Explorer for a while when you insert a CD or DVD? This is a little different, it's a case of Explorer blocking, rather then intensive I/O. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows 2000 setup: can't load Windows Boot loader. | OM | General | 1 | February 21st 06 01:06 AM |
A8N-SLI Won't Load Windows | wdl | Asus Motherboards | 10 | January 22nd 05 03:49 PM |
PC POSTs but won't load Windows | zmike6 | Ati Videocards | 10 | August 15th 04 07:00 AM |
Balance Point / Load of crock. | Dennis E Strausser Jr | Overclocking | 2 | May 17th 04 10:53 PM |
windows (XP) will not load after new mb fitted | Mark Fraser | General | 6 | January 4th 04 03:05 AM |