Slow System and Network, High PF usgae
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: capturing PS output in IPrintOemPS2::WritePrinter
Next: Windbg trouble debugging - target Win7 pro AMD64
From: Daniel on 29 Jun 2010 11:01 Hi, The PC: Eight CPU system with 3 GB of RAM, /3G and /USERVA=2500 in boot.ini, few processes, each can use up to 1.5 GB of virtual memory. PF usage is above 3 GB. The total CPU usage is about 23% but the ping response is about 50 ms or more. The user interface response(mouse, starting processes with GUI) is not perfect (somehow slow). This system, after running for almost a day, suddenly experiences a 100% CPU usage and the network is very slow (ping response average is 800 ms). What is the cause of this low performance? Would adding memory to the system improve this situation? Any comment or idea is really appreciated. Thanks, Daniel
From: eagersh on 30 Jun 2010 12:11 On Jun 29, 9:01 am, Daniel <Dan...(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The PC: Eight CPU system with 3 GB of RAM, /3G and /USERVA=2500 in boot..ini, > few processes, each can use up to 1.5 GB of virtual memory. PF usage is above > 3 GB. > The total CPU usage is about 23% but the ping response is about 50 ms or > more. The user interface response(mouse, starting processes with GUI) is not > perfect (somehow slow). This system, after running for almost a day, suddenly > experiences a 100% CPU usage and the network is very slow (ping response > average is 800 ms). > > What is the cause of this low performance? > Would adding memory to the system improve this situation? > > Any comment or idea is really appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Daniel Have you done any new install on your PC? If so, try to uninstall and test again. Igor Sharovar
From: Tim Roberts on 2 Jul 2010 00:41 Daniel <Daniel(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >The PC: Eight CPU system with 3 GB of RAM, /3G and /USERVA=2500 in boot.ini, >few processes, each can use up to 1.5 GB of virtual memory. PF usage is above >3 GB. >The total CPU usage is about 23% but the ping response is about 50 ms or >more. The user interface response(mouse, starting processes with GUI) is not >perfect (somehow slow). This system, after running for almost a day, suddenly >experiences a 100% CPU usage and the network is very slow (ping response >average is 800 ms). > >What is the cause of this low performance? It's not immediately clear to me that /3G is a net win in your situation. You're limiting the kernel address space, which includes all of the page tables for all of those huge processes. Have you tried running without /3G? >Would adding memory to the system improve this situation? Which operationg system? The non-server operating systems will not use any memory above the 4GB mark at all. You could try Win 7 64-bit. That allows larger virtual address spaces, even for 32-bit processes. -- Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
From: Daniel on 4 Jul 2010 19:53 The OS is XP. I agree hat win 7 would be ideal solution but I am trying to understand why the system suddenly experiences 100% Total CPU. Can the excessive page fault causes a 100% total CPU (8 CPUs)? Is the the physical memory the bottleneck in this situation? note that there were still non-page pool available. I got few performance monitor counters but they were not conclusive. -- Thanks, Daniel "Tim Roberts" wrote: > Daniel <Daniel(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >The PC: Eight CPU system with 3 GB of RAM, /3G and /USERVA=2500 in boot.ini, > >few processes, each can use up to 1.5 GB of virtual memory. PF usage is above > >3 GB. > >The total CPU usage is about 23% but the ping response is about 50 ms or > >more. The user interface response(mouse, starting processes with GUI) is not > >perfect (somehow slow). This system, after running for almost a day, suddenly > >experiences a 100% CPU usage and the network is very slow (ping response > >average is 800 ms). > > > >What is the cause of this low performance? > > It's not immediately clear to me that /3G is a net win in your situation. > You're limiting the kernel address space, which includes all of the page > tables for all of those huge processes. Have you tried running without > /3G? > > >Would adding memory to the system improve this situation? > > Which operationg system? The non-server operating systems will not use any > memory above the 4GB mark at all. You could try Win 7 64-bit. That allows > larger virtual address spaces, even for 32-bit processes. > -- > Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. > . >
From: Tim Roberts on 7 Jul 2010 01:23
Daniel <Daniel(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >The OS is XP. I agree hat win 7 would be ideal solution but I am trying to >understand why the system suddenly experiences 100% Total CPU. Can the >excessive page fault causes a 100% total CPU (8 CPUs)? Is the the physical >memory the bottleneck in this situation? note that there were still non-page >pool available. I got few performance monitor counters but they were not >conclusive. Did you track page faults? Running out of physical memory can easily cause all of the CPUs to dedicate themselves to thrashing to the page file. Non-paged pool is a pool of virtual address SPACE, not physical memory. -- Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. |