is "Everything" doing some mining?

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
I wonder. If you had a million files in an IE cache,
would the dates on the files change when you use IE ?

I would want to understand just how many files were
on this machine, for a starter. To see if there is
"any potential way for scaling to account for it".

Like, if there were 10 million files, you would
expect the indexing (if and when done) to take
longer than an average install/use of 0.5 million files.
[]
Everything's search GUI tells you how many matches there are to the
string you've typed in. With no string, which I think means it's showing
all files (and folders), the figure showing is "211,629 objects". If I
enter C:, it says 158,032; D:, 53,598. [So there's a lot of _garbage_ on
C:!) It's a fairly static number - as I watch it now, the last three
digits are varying between 630 and 631, suggesting the OS is not
creating and destroying many files as it idles. Now (after a minute or
three) it's changing between 631 and 632. Just out of curiosity, I'll
close Chrome ... odd, that (with JS enabled and about ten tabs open) was
the only thing I thought would be doing much. OK, I'll close Firefox ...
also no change. Did go up gradually to 211,625 - now back at 211,619.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise
has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of
"How's DX?" column in "QST")

On 16 Mar 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

For me it's a general issue with indexing. The indexes may or may
not be up to date, for example, after adding or modifying or
removing some files, but without indexing, what you see is what
you get, and there is no waiting for an index to rebuilt each
time.

I've used Everything for many years on many computers and what you
describe has NEVER EVER been a problem or issue. The index is always
updated instantly, even on the slowest of computers. The closest I've
ever seen this be to a question is when I've attached removable drives
and Everything has added its contents to its index, and those files are
still listed after you disconnect the drive. You can rebuild the index,
which takes less than a minute, or better yet, just tell it to not
bother to index removable drives.

I also have indexing turned off on my system too. That's one of
the first things I did when I get a new computer, but in this case
it may also be due tothe potential for hogging some system
resources, on occasion.

Window's built-in search indexing is, indeed slow. Everything's
indexing is immediate and virtually undetectable. Likewise, it's search
is instantaneous.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
[]
I wonder. If you had a million files in an IE cache,
would the dates on the files change when you use IE ?

I would want to understand just how many files were
on this machine, for a starter. To see if there is
"any potential way for scaling to account for it".

Like, if there were 10 million files, you would
expect the indexing (if and when done) to take
longer than an average install/use of 0.5 million files.
[]
Everything's search GUI tells you how many matches there are to the
string you've typed in. With no string, which I think means it's showing
all files (and folders), the figure showing is "211,629 objects". If I
enter C:, it says 158,032; D:, 53,598. [So there's a lot of _garbage_ on
C:!) It's a fairly static number - as I watch it now, the last three
digits are varying between 630 and 631, suggesting the OS is not
creating and destroying many files as it idles. Now (after a minute or
three) it's changing between 631 and 632. Just out of curiosity, I'll
close Chrome ... odd, that (with JS enabled and about ten tabs open) was
the only thing I thought would be doing much. OK, I'll close Firefox ...
also no change. Did go up gradually to 211,625 - now back at 211,619.

So that's not it.

It's a small machine, and scaling isn't the problem.

*******

So something is going into a loop, and our last choice is ProcMon.
Even if you don't know how to use it, just use the trace windows
scroll bar and see if the Everything.exe process is accessing files
and so on. You don't need to mess with filters. Just close the
filter window, and let it capture a trace, then scroll down
and see if there are readfile, writefile, createfile, or the
like, associated with everything.exe. Use the "X" box in the
upper corner, to stop it. This way, you don't have to learn
anything.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sys...nloads/procmon

If the trace is quiet, and *no* events with the process name
of "everything.exe" are being recorded, it means everything.exe
is in a memory-intensive loop or a cpu-core intensive loop,
and isn't even going near the file system. And this could mean
that somehow (and quite quite unlikely), one of the algorithms
it uses has gone nuts. Perhaps it's a problem with the USN
journal, or, some *other* program is tiddling the date
on a file, over and over and over again. And everything.exe,
being a good boy, is reading the USN journal in response.
Note that this sort of loop *also* happens with Windows Search
indexer, but usually the loop-age is at the 1Hz rate, and not
a good solid infinite-loop. Microsoft specifically put in
rate-limiting in their design, so people would not notice
their screw-ups and corner cases.

Paul

Nil wrote:


Window's built-in search indexing is, indeed slow. Everything's
indexing is immediate and virtually undetectable. Likewise, it's search
is instantaneous.

It's a content-indexer, where the button to disable
the content aspect, and just index filenames,
that button doesn't work! I think this is some
"humor" from the Microsoft staff, this button
to nowhere.

To read every file content and build an inverted index
takes around three hours.

If the Microsoft indexer just did filenames,
that would take about 15 seconds, for comparison.
But, they have no intention of doing that.

And everyone who deals with inverted indexes, seems
to use the same method.

1) Index is empty. The very first chunk of stuff to
be indexed, fills this index relatively rapidly.
2) At a "magic size", the indexer switches modes.
a) Create a temporary (empty) index file.
b) Index a section of the target.
c) Merge( temporary-index, main-index )
This step is God-awful slow.
Delete( temporary-index )
d) Repeat until entire target is processed.

And the progress slows down and runs at the
reduced rate, due to the merging that is going on.
Presumably the merging gets slower, the larger
the index gets. The largest index I've heard of
to date, was around 12GB (but it could easily
get bigger than that).

It's possible to make the Windows Indexer run faster,
by turning off the "Back off" feature, but it really
doesn't help much. The "Back off" feature reduces
Indexer activity when the mouse gets moved. Slightly
more CPU is used, if you step away from the computer
and let it finish the indexing (when the default
back-off behavior is enabled).

And I don't think you can turn off the indexer entirely.
Even if you stop the Service for it, it'll start itself
again. Some other agent steps in, and turns it on again.
It almost behaves like "malware" :-/ You can reduce
the list of things to be indexed to "nothing", but
the Indexer still runs, and it doesn't take zero time
either, when the list is zero length.

Paul

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:16:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

On 03/17/2019 6:06 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

Yes, for me I notice it has gone to 25% (of an apparently 4-core
processor), and doesn't come back down (even if I close the GUI).


Everything uses multiple threads to complete much of its work in
parallel, and that could impact CPU usage. You can edit the
everything.ini file to change the max_threads. I think max_threads=0
means to disable throttling of thread count. You could max_threads=x,
where x is the number of logical CPUs (cores) minus 1, or to a lesser
number to generate less threads for Everything. With less threads,
updating will take longer but as less CPU usage.

It's set to 0 at the moment. When I've looked at task manager when it
goes to 25%, it isn't all in one core, though it's not symmetrical - two
of them seem busier than the other two.

So you're obviously looking at the Performance tab in XP's Task Manager.
I'm sure you've done this next part, but I'll ask anyway. Do you also
flip over to the Processes tab of Task Manager and click the CPU column
to verify that it's Everything that's using the most CPU? It'd be a
shame to chase after Everything, only to find that something else is the
culprit. Not that I think there's actually a culprit, but that's another
matter.

--

Char Jackson

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 20:04:39 -0400, Paul wrote:

I wonder. If you had a million files in an IE cache,
would the dates on the files change when you use IE ?

I would expect the changed files to have new dates, but I don't see why
any other files in the cache would get touched in that way.

--

Char Jackson

Nil wrote:
On 16 Mar 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

For me it's a general issue with indexing. The indexes may or may
not be up to date, for example, after adding or modifying or
removing some files, but without indexing, what you see is what
you get, and there is no waiting for an index to rebuilt each
time.

I've used Everything for many years on many computers and what you
describe has NEVER EVER been a problem or issue. The index is always
updated instantly, even on the slowest of computers. The closest I've
ever seen this be to a question is when I've attached removable drives
and Everything has added its contents to its index, and those files are
still listed after you disconnect the drive. You can rebuild the index,
which takes less than a minute, or better yet, just tell it to not
bother to index removable drives.

OK. I read that happens so quickly since it simply uses the NTFS change
journal information.

I also have indexing turned off on my system too. That's one of
the first things I did when I get a new computer, but in this case
it may also be due tothe potential for hogging some system
resources, on occasion.

Window's built-in search indexing is, indeed slow. Everything's
indexing is immediate and virtually undetectable. Likewise, it's search
is instantaneous.

Well, who knows, maybe I'll give it a try. Or even look at some others.
But for me, so far Agent Ransack and FileLocator Pro have been fine (despite
the longer wait). And of course, they both work on NTFS and FAT32 volumes.

As I understand it, Everything can't search FAT32 volumes (or maybe it can,
but just without any indexing). I'm guessing not, however, and that's it's
pretty much designed for NTFS volumes. (I did read that it at least allowed
you to index a specified FAT folder, but that's about it). But if you can't
use it on FAT32 volumes, that's a significant limitation, at least for me.

Also, a simple search on file mod dates (between date xx and date xy, simply
checked off via checkboxes like in Agent Ransack), would be nice. But I
haven't looked further into it.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 22:58:24 -0600, "Bill in Co"
surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote:

Nil wrote:
On 16 Mar 2019, "Bill in Co" surly_curmudgeon@earthlink wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

For me it's a general issue with indexing. The indexes may or may
not be up to date, for example, after adding or modifying or
removing some files, but without indexing, what you see is what
you get, and there is no waiting for an index to rebuilt each
time.

I've used Everything for many years on many computers and what you
describe has NEVER EVER been a problem or issue. The index is always
updated instantly, even on the slowest of computers. The closest I've
ever seen this be to a question is when I've attached removable drives
and Everything has added its contents to its index, and those files are
still listed after you disconnect the drive. You can rebuild the index,
which takes less than a minute, or better yet, just tell it to not
bother to index removable drives.

OK. I read that happens so quickly since it simply uses the NTFS change
journal information.

I also have indexing turned off on my system too. That's one of
the first things I did when I get a new computer, but in this case
it may also be due tothe potential for hogging some system
resources, on occasion.

Window's built-in search indexing is, indeed slow. Everything's
indexing is immediate and virtually undetectable. Likewise, it's search
is instantaneous.

Well, who knows, maybe I'll give it a try. Or even look at some others.
But for me, so far Agent Ransack and FileLocator Pro have been fine (despite
the longer wait). And of course, they both work on NTFS and FAT32 volumes.

As I understand it, Everything can't search FAT32 volumes

It can. It can also search networked drives.

(or maybe it can, but just without any indexing).

With indexing. It's just done by scanning rather than watching the USN
Journal (since FAT32 doesn't have a USN Journal).

You can configure Everything to rescan your FAT32 drive(s) at intervals
ranging from 1 minute to once a week. I have mine set to re-index every
night at 3AM. If I happen to be using the computer at that time, I don't
notice the indexing (I've watched for it.) It simply blends in with the
regular activity.

I'm guessing not, however, and that's it's
pretty much designed for NTFS volumes. (I did read that it at least allowed
you to index a specified FAT folder, but that's about it). But if you can't
use it on FAT32 volumes, that's a significant limitation, at least for me.

No such limitation.

Also, a simple search on file mod dates (between date xx and date xy, simply
checked off via checkboxes like in Agent Ransack), would be nice. But I
haven't looked further into it.

I've never needed it, but it looks like it has some date stuff. Here's a
c/p from About, Help.

Date Syntax:
year
month/year or year/month depending on locale settings
day/month/year, month/day/year or year/month/day depending on
locale settings
YYYY[-MM[-DD[Thh[:mm[:ss[.sss]]]]]]
YYYYMM[DD[Thh[mm[ss[.sss]]]]]

Date Constants:
today
yesterday
tomorrow
last|past|prev|current|this|coming|nextyear|mon th|week

last|past|prev|coming|nextxyears|months|weeks |days|hours|minutes|mins|seconds|secs

january|february|march|april|may|june|july|august| september|october|november|december
jan|feb|mar|apr|may|jun|jul|aug|sep|oct|nov|dec
sunday|monday|tuesday|wednesday|thursday|friday|sa turday
sun|mon|tue|wed|thu|fri|sat
unknown

--

Char Jackson

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:16:52 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
It's set to 0 at the moment. When I've looked at task manager when it
goes to 25%, it isn't all in one core, though it's not symmetrical - two
of them seem busier than the other two.

So you're obviously looking at the Performance tab in XP's Task Manager.

Yes.

I'm sure you've done this next part, but I'll ask anyway. Do you also
flip over to the Processes tab of Task Manager and click the CPU column
to verify that it's Everything that's using the most CPU? It'd be a

Yes, it's been the _only_ thing using anything significant, when I've
looked at these times.

shame to chase after Everything, only to find that something else is the
culprit. Not that I think there's actually a culprit, but that's another
matter.

It hasn't done it for ages now (-:!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."

On 3/16/2019 9:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I used to open "Everything" and then leave it running. It takes a few
seconds to open, then settles down; I can use it, and it finds things
amazingly fast. It is an excellent utility!

However, of late: some minutes after I've opened it and all has settled
down, I hear my fan spin up (it is normally idling), and I start Task
Manager to see what's using CPU - and I see Everything.exe is using 25%
CPU (four apparent cores - I think it's an i3). This applies though I
haven't typed anything new into the search box. Closing the search
window doesn't stop it; however, selecting Exit from the menu that
appears when I right-click on the tray icon does stop it, within a small
number of seconds.

It's consistent - meaning Exit-ing it _always_ stops the 25% and fan, so
I am definite that Everything is the cause; I can't say that running it
always starts the 25% [I just started it again while typing this post,
and it hasn't gone berserk yet - Task Manager shows it sitting there at
00 CPU. It also came up immediately, with the search box showing all
files, i. e. without the few seconds' wait I usually experience when I
start it, so it presumably has some cache somewhere or something.]

I just have a simple system - two partitions on one HD; in particular, I
_don't_ have any network drives.

You might ask what I'm _doing_ when it goes berserk: I can't say it is
always this, but usually downloading a video file or two: I tend to have
Everything open as I use it to see if I've already got a particular file
before starting the download. But once E. has started its berserking,
even if I don't download any more, it doesn't stop 25%ing after the
current download has completed.

If voidtools _are_ doing some mining, I probably wouldn't mind, but I've
just looked at the website - there's no mention of such. Nor anything in
the FAQ about "why is Everything using so much CPU" or similar question.

If not (and I really don't think it is), I'm very puzzled about what it
_is_ doing! I did ask this here before, and I think there were
suggestions about doing a re-index; but I can't see why it should do
that continuously, especially when I'm not doing anything.

[FWIW, for the several minutes since I restarted it a few paragraphs
ago, it _hasn't_ gone above 00 in Task Manager. Maybe that's what I'll
have to do in futu start it, stop it when it goes berserk, then start
it again. But it seems decidedly odd!]
When I start to hear my CPU fan speed up and then down, it has always
been that the fins on the CPU are clogged with dust. A quick vacuuming
and all is quiet again.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:13:35 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:


When I start to hear my CPU fan speed up and then down, it has always
been that the fins on the CPU are clogged with dust. A quick vacuuming
and all is quiet again.



As I understand it, vacuuming inside a computer case is a dangerous
thing to do. You run the risk of a static electricity discharge frying
the CPU or other components.

Much safer is blowing out the dust with a can of compressed air.

Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:13:35 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:


When I start to hear my CPU fan speed up and then down, it has always
been that the fins on the CPU are clogged with dust. A quick vacuuming
and all is quiet again.



As I understand it, vacuuming inside a computer case is a dangerous
thing to do. You run the risk of a static electricity discharge frying
the CPU or other components.

Much safer is blowing out the dust with a can of compressed air.

I took my old XP machine in to get another power supply. When I
picked it up the lady said, "While I had the cover off I gave it a
blow job".

--
G Ross

"Ken Blake" wrote


When I start to hear my CPU fan speed up and then down, it has always
been that the fins on the CPU are clogged with dust. A quick vacuuming
and all is quiet again.

|
As I understand it, vacuuming inside a computer case is a dangerous
thing to do. You run the risk of a static electricity discharge frying
the CPU or other components.

Much safer is blowing out the dust with a can of compressed air.
|

Compressed air cans is not compressed air. It's a spray
can of some kind of solvent. That'd always seemed iffy
to me. I've always vacuumed and never had any trouble.
I make sure the case is grounded and I don't touch the
vacuum tip to anything. Though it's made of something
like vinyl. I doubt it could conduct a static charge.

Another method to avoid that problem in the first place:
I buy the green furnace filter pads at Home Depot that
come with plastic grids. The filter is very low resistance.
20"x25". I just cut up sections to fit the intake holes,
put a grid behind it, then use plastic ties to hold the
grid on. That way you prevent the dust getting in in
the first place.

Ken Blake wrote:

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 08:13:35 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote:

When I start to hear my CPU fan speed up and then down, it has always
been that the fins on the CPU are clogged with dust. A quick vacuuming
and all is quiet again.

As I understand it, vacuuming inside a computer case is a dangerous
thing to do. You run the risk of a static electricity discharge frying
the CPU or other components.

Much safer is blowing out the dust with a can of compressed air.

You also get concentrated higher pressure air delivery from the straw
tip from canned air than with the far more huge diameter of the vacuum
hose.

I do sometimes use a vacuum but that's only when I blow out the
computer's dust inside the house. I attach a wide floor tool to the end
of the vacuum hose and hold it to hover a few inches away from the
computer. It's to catch most of the dust that I'm blowing out of the
computer, so it doesn't end up in the room. The vacuum never touches
the computer. For the annual springtime dusting, I disconnect all the
cables and take the computer outside to dust it out using compressed air
(and NOT from an air compressor which is way too high for pressure but
by using canned air).

Yes, there are computer vacuums (and bigger than those rather useless
ones for cleaning the keyboard) that are designed to not produce static
(very expensive); however, they still cannot suck the dust out of the
tight fins of heatsinks. Those little computer dusting fans have little
suction, so they suck (figuratively).

I do use ear swabs when I dust the computer. One use is to keep the
fans from spinning when I blow compressed air through their fins. Do
not allow an unpowered fan to spin when blowing air through it. Another
use is to scrub the fins of the fans. At speed, dust will stick to the
fins and blowing (or vacuuming) won't budge it. The limp bristles on a
little computer vacuum won't dislodge it. The stuck-on dust can
unbalance the fan. When I hear a fan making more noise, cleaning it
(which includes scrubbing off the stuck-on dust) makes it quiet again.
Out of balance fans make more noise.

Thread has degraded to hot air !