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
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:26:08 -0700, Olie wrote:
Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. Why do you need both running in the background ? Process Lasso has a free version for XP https://bitsum.com/company-news/proc...003-completed/ (registration code on the page) It keeps logs and does real time monitoring of CPU usage. And lowers CPU usage of misbehaving programs rather nicely. If you can't figure out what's wrong, PL will clobber it. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
Olie wrote:
Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. For Everything, it's not poor programming. You have to remember how it works. 1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has "appeared" in the file system. 2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the current pointer, sees the new file. 3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database. This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1), and the thing goes around in a merry circle. These behaviors are also present in the Microsoft Search Indexer, where the search indexer will "diddle" back and forth between seeing 1,2,1,2,1,2... files forever. The difference, is the Microsoft indexer has a "throttle", so that if it does loop, it can only do (1),(2),(3) about once a second. This reduces the impact of mis-configuration. Another possibility, is there's something wrong with the insertion sort Everything needs to do when adding a new file to the list. And that would constitute bad programming, if you somehow broke that as a developer. That seems less likely. You would normally report this to the developer. One other newsgroup participant has seen this on his laptop as well, so you are not alone. If this happened on one of my computers, I would run sysinternals.com Process Monitor and capture a trace. And see what files Everything is accessing, to try to develop a picture of the problem, before contacting the developer. ******* Browsers looping, well, that's just the nature of "internet facing" applications. There are a zillion ways to exploit them, to abuse them. We almost need browser engines "built out of silicon", not as a means to cure the problem, but to "isolate the stink" to something other than a CPU :-) Like, maybe some day, they could put a browser engine in the video card silicon. It would be much harder to triangulate the problem on a broken web page. There is a "developer mode", but so far, that's never helped me figure stuff out. Because browsers "composite" their image output 60 times a second, it's much more expensive to do that than the old way with "expose events". It's intended to make the browser really responsive, and potentially, buttery smooth. But on most desktops, this hardly seems to happen. For example, I've seen one web page which "flashes" about once a second, and the duration is short enough, I can't make out what object it's trying to render. It's too short for humans to recognize, so maybe the flash is only a single frame time long. All I can tell you, is when these things happen, somewhere... a web developer is laughing his ass off. They're that evil. Like, imagine the idiot who created the Yahoo News page, filled with videos that autoplay as you scroll down the web page. This chews up 1GB of RAM for a single web page, when that happens. I could hear the maniacal laughter in the background. At one time, there used to be "raspberry prizes" given for worst web page, but now there are too many candidates. Personally, I would be "shocked", if some day they can make videos play reliably on a browser. It would be a miracle. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
In message , Paul
writes: Olie wrote: Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. If you could move the mouse _at all_, right-clicking on the "Everything" icon in the tray will give an "Exit" option; I don't know if that's any better than killing (which I assume you mean you did from Task Manager), though I usually feel it is. For Everything, it's not poor programming. You have to remember how it works. 1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has "appeared" in the file system. 2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the current pointer, sees the new file. 3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database. This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1), and the thing goes around in a merry circle. What puzzles me is that the above sounds a very plausible explanation, except that I don't see why it only happens occasionally. (I've got Everything running now, and it has been for some time - but it's only using 00% [of my "four"-core processor], same as usual.) Doesn't explain why Olie is seeing two copies though! (I've never seen that.) [] The difference, is the Microsoft indexer has a "throttle", so that if it does loop, it can only do (1),(2),(3) about once a second. This reduces the impact of mis-configuration. (Maybe Everything will get one of those one day.) [] You would normally report this to the developer. One other newsgroup participant has seen this on his laptop as well, so you are not alone. I assume that's me (-:. (Happening on W7HP-32, and generally goes to 24-26% of a "4-core" CPU when it does happen [uses most, though not all, of one "core", and a bit of another one].) Though I've never seen two instances running. If this happened on one of my computers, I would run sysinternals.com Process Monitor and capture a trace. And see what files Everything is accessing, to try to develop a picture of the problem, before contacting the developer. I did, but didn't understand enough of the results (-:. It happens rarely enough that I can live with it. (Plus, for something that I am not paying for, I don't want to waste the developer's time on something very rare [just the two of us so far, and rarely enough even for me at that].) ******* [] It would be much harder to triangulate the problem on a broken web page. There is a "developer mode", but so far, that's never helped me figure stuff out. Yes, easier to find the _non_-broken web page these days. Because browsers "composite" their image output 60 times Wow, I didn't know that: it sounds extremely wasteful. What, they do it even for a static page? (And do you mean always 60, or at the refresh rate?) [] All I can tell you, is when these things happen, somewhere... a web developer is laughing his ass off. They're that evil. Like, imagine the idiot who created the Yahoo News page, filled with videos that autoplay as you scroll down the web page. This chews up 1GB of RAM for a single web page, when that happens. I could hear the maniacal laughter in the background. At one It would be almost a relief to think they _are_ that evil, but I'm afraid I don't think that's the case. I think they're just, in most cases, incompetent, and in a few cases where they do realise, uncaring (which is bordering on as evil). time, there used to be "raspberry prizes" given for worst web page, but now there are too many candidates. Yup. Personally, I would be "shocked", if some day they can make videos play reliably on a browser. It would be a miracle. You mean multiple videos on one page? There are a lot of pages with a single one that seems to work reasonably well, YouTube being the obvious one. Paul -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television to survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: Olie wrote: Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. If you could move the mouse _at all_, right-clicking on the "Everything" icon in the tray will give an "Exit" option; I don't know if that's any better than killing (which I assume you mean you did from Task Manager), though I usually feel it is. For Everything, it's not poor programming. You have to remember how it works. 1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has "appeared" in the file system. 2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the current pointer, sees the new file. 3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database. This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1), and the thing goes around in a merry circle. What puzzles me is that the above sounds a very plausible explanation, except that I don't see why it only happens occasionally. (I've got Everything running now, and it has been for some time - but it's only using 00% [of my "four"-core processor], same as usual.) Doesn't explain why Olie is seeing two copies though! (I've never seen that.) That implies a semaphore failure. If Everything were to fork copies, one per hard drive, during a "reindex everything" call, it's possible two instances are jammed trying to update the one file. (Something could be tasked with managing the work, but only listens to one child at a time.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinlock I've watched that in Process Explorer (run as admin, check the stack view or so). What you see there doesn't always make sense, but I've seen stuff stuck waiting, and the stack has particular named calls for that. The problem with Process Explorer taking a stack sample, is you cannot exactly take a random sample, and I think the state the stack is found in sometimes, is a "parked" state and thus, polluted and not to be trusted for debug. Before, I made the suggestion of using Process Monitor, to check the CreateFile/ReadFile/WriteFile pattern of the "busy" beavers. But if you suspect a threading or semaphore problem (like, seeing two identical named processes is a hint to go look), you can run Process Explorer and get a hint. That might give you a breadcrumb about 10-20% of the time. Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
Also sort on date does not work !
Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
In message , Olie
writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
No it does not !
If necessary I can attest to this in court ! I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the date correctly. Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort routine ! J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Olie writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
Olie wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Olie writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. No it does not ! If necessary I can attest to this in court ! I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the date correctly. Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort routine ! I think I can see one anomaly in the list. I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance" out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order. But I noticed the icons on the left are different. It sorts the folders first, then the files. folder_icon 001 folder_icon 002 folder_icon 003 folder_icon 004 file_icon 002 file_icon 003 So even though in some "strict sense", clicking the filename at the top should have given, 001 002 002 003 003 004 it's the fact some are folders and some are files, Mr.carpenter put all the folders in the list first, then the files. It's basically two lists in the display at the same time. +-------------------------+ | | | Folder section of list | | | +-------------------------+ | | | File section of list | | | +-------------------------+ HTH, Paul |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
Paul wrote:
Olie wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Olie writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. No it does not ! If necessary I can attest to this in court ! I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the date correctly. Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort routine ! I think I can see one anomaly in the list. I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance" out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order. But I noticed the icons on the left are different. It sorts the folders first, then the files. folder_icon 001 folder_icon 002 folder_icon 003 folder_icon 004 file_icon 002 file_icon 003 So even though in some "strict sense", clicking the filename at the top should have given, 001 002 002 003 003 004 it's the fact some are folders and some are files, Mr.carpenter put all the folders in the list first, then the files. It's basically two lists in the display at the same time. +-------------------------+ | Folder section of list | | +-------------------------+ | File section of list | | +-------------------------+ HTH, Paul Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too. Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's generally preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could at least be available in some file utilities). |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
In message , Bill in Co
writes: Paul wrote: Olie wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Olie writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. No it does not ! If necessary I can attest to this in court ! Calm down dear! (UK cultural reference.) I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the date correctly. I have 216,616 objects (last digit fluctuating between 6 and 7). I've just scrolled through them - which took _many_ minutes: there sure is a lot of JUNK in there! More in winsxs than anywhere else. OK, mostly files of only a few K, but still, offensive. Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort routine ! Maybe over a certain number; I'm not seeing that (and my list covers both C: and D, except as below. I think I can see one anomaly in the list. I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance" out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order. But I noticed the icons on the left are different. It sorts the folders first, then the files. [] It's basically two lists in the display at the same time. +-------------------------+ | Folder section of list | | +-------------------------+ | File section of list | | +-------------------------+ HTH, Paul Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too. Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's generally preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could at least be available in some file utilities). Mine - after one click, so newest at top - has files (newest to oldest), then folders (ditto). First my 26 files dated 2028-2-xx, then 203 files with today's date, and so on, back to 1988-3-24, three dated 1980-1-1 0:0, one dated 1906-9-29, then folders: one from 2028-2-2, 86 dated today, back to 4,319 (!) dated 2009-7-14. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: Paul wrote: Olie wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Olie writes: Also sort on date does not work ! Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it. I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey. No it does not ! If necessary I can attest to this in court ! Calm down dear! (UK cultural reference.) I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the date correctly. I have 216,616 objects (last digit fluctuating between 6 and 7). I've just scrolled through them - which took _many_ minutes: there sure is a lot of JUNK in there! More in winsxs than anywhere else. OK, mostly files of only a few K, but still, offensive. Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort routine ! Maybe over a certain number; I'm not seeing that (and my list covers both C: and D, except as below. I think I can see one anomaly in the list. I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance" out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order. But I noticed the icons on the left are different. It sorts the folders first, then the files. [] It's basically two lists in the display at the same time. +-------------------------+ | Folder section of list | | +-------------------------+ | File section of list | | +-------------------------+ HTH, Paul Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too. Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's generally preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could at least be available in some file utilities). Mine - after one click, so newest at top - has files (newest to oldest), then folders (ditto). First my 26 files dated 2028-2-xx, then 203 files with today's date, and so on, back to 1988-3-24, three dated 1980-1-1 0:0, one dated 1906-9-29, then folders: one from 2028-2-2, 86 dated today, back to 4,319 (!) dated 2009-7-14. You're right - files come first sorting from newest to oldest, folders come first sorting from oldest to newest. I guess that is probably a "better" default behavior too, since it's probably more likely more files have been recently updated, and the user would want to see that. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
What, are you in a time machine with a 2028 date ? And how did you get the date format changed ? Maybe this will help ??? I am on Win 7 Pro. And You ? Everything Version 1.4.1.895 (x64) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
In message , Olie
writes: What, are you in a time machine with a 2028 date ? I _assume_ this was in response to one of my posts. (Snipping is good - most people don't do enough of it - but it's usual to leave enough of the post you're replying to that readers can see what you're on about.) We discussed this within the last week or two. The conclusion we came to was that the on-board clock must have been awry - probably ten years so, maybe my having set it wrong - when the machine did some update. (They're mostly in C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\L ocalLow\Microsoft\Crypt netUrlCache\MetaData and C:\Users\usename\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Cryp tnetUrlCache\Content\, so I'm reluctant to just get rid of them in case, with CryptnetUrlCache in them, I lose access to something.) And how did you get the date format changed ? In Windows 7 with Classic Shell: Control panel, region and language, Formats; it is slightly different in other combinations. (IIRR, under XP it was "Regional Settings", or "Time and Date". You'll see when you get there.) I have "Short date" set to yyyy-M-d and "Long date" to yyyy MMMM d; your choice may vary. If the one you want isn't in the drop-down list, don't worry - you can type in the box. Maybe this will help ??? I doubt it. I am on Win 7 Pro. And You ? Home. Everything Version 1.4.1.895 (x64) 1.4.1.935 (x86) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf … too popular actually to be any good. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:12:03 -0400, Paul wrote:
Olie wrote: Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0% Process Explorer shows: two copies of Everything eating up 60% why two copies ? one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest. Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more. Why can't these programmers write proper code ? I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop. Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway. Any fix ? Other than use another app. For Everything, it's not poor programming. You have to remember how it works. 1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has "appeared" in the file system. 2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the current pointer, sees the new file. 3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database. This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1), and the thing goes around in a merry circle. I don't think that's an actual issue, although it sounds good in theory. I'd bet that each of us who use Everything are able to type "everything" into its interface and see, among the results, its index file. There's never been any noticeable looping behavior, AFAIK. Its author probably took care of that behavior a very long time ago, in one of the earliest versions. -- Char Jackson |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|