home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu!bai
- From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
- Subject: Re: How does monitor.exe get its process info?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec13.142934.570@tc.cornell.edu>
- Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu
- Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
- References: <1geda5INN5qe@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:29:34 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1geda5INN5qe@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> murrayk@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (the Dodger) writes:
-
- >However, looking from a programmer's point of view: How the hell does the
- >program get the kind of information that it displays? Is it very accurate?
- >I've only got a 33mhz 386 and when I make a project with CSet/2 that takes
- >about 10 minutes to compile, My processor is idle at least 50% of the time,
- >even while downloading (2400 baud...) in the background with many other utils
- >running also. Is this real? I suppose that my processor could be waiting around
- >for the disk (SCSI) and memory quite a bit. But that still leaves the question
- >of how you can get that accurate of information. I've seen it done on every
- >UNIX system I've seen, but never on OS/2. The other monitors available are not
- >accurate at all, not to say they are not usefull.
- >
- >I'm just curious. I would like to be able to get some serious system statistics
- >for myself and I'm wondering how it can be done.
-
-
- I tested this program with the Whetstone benchmark: It gave about 70% idle
- time but the program gave the right whetstone. I guess there is something
- wrong with MONITOR.EXE.
-
- >
- >Keith
- >
- >--
- > ____ _____ ____
- >Keith Murray / /___/ /\ \ \ \____ P.O. Box 1889
- >murrayk@prism.cs.orst.edu /___ / / /__\ \____\ ____\ Corvallis OR 97339
- > the Dodger s o f t w\ a r e
-
-
-