Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download? - OS2

This is a discussion on Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download? - OS2 ; I just noticed something curious on my W4 FP17+ desktop box with APM 1.2, while downloading 2 CD isos in parallel, using wget. It appeared, that each time when I disengaged Doodle's screen saver, which had started to display the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

  1. Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    I just noticed something curious on my W4 FP17+ desktop box with APM 1.2,
    while downloading 2 CD isos in parallel, using wget.

    It appeared, that each time when I disengaged Doodle's screen saver, which
    had started to display the Cairo clock just moments earlier, by using the
    keyboard, the d/l rate for both wget sessions, had dropped to below 40kB/s
    in each of them during that time period.

    Before and after the screen saver being active, the rate was around 200kB/s
    for each of them. The XCenter IP-Monitor widget then also showed a
    downstream rate of around 400kB/s again.

    On the first tab of the power object's settings I have "APM-BIOS and OS/2
    Support active" and the last option within that frame checked

    So, how is it possible, that the IP throughput drops so drastically, when
    the screen saver just engages?

    Wolfi


  2. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:11:06 -0500, Wolfi wrote:

    > So, how is it possible, that the IP throughput drops so drastically, when
    > the screen saver just engages?


    Probably because the screen saver is badly written (or badly configured)
    not to use idle time priority and is using up lots of CPU cycles.

  3. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    Wolfi wrote:
    > I just noticed something curious on my W4 FP17+ desktop box with APM
    > 1.2, while downloading 2 CD isos in parallel, using wget.
    >
    > It appeared, that each time when I disengaged Doodle's screen saver,
    > which had started to display the Cairo clock just moments earlier, by
    > using the keyboard, the d/l rate for both wget sessions, had dropped to
    > below 40kB/s in each of them during that time period.
    >
    > Before and after the screen saver being active, the rate was around
    > 200kB/s for each of them. The XCenter IP-Monitor widget then also showed
    > a downstream rate of around 400kB/s again.
    >
    > On the first tab of the power object's settings I have "APM-BIOS and
    > OS/2 Support active" and the last option within that frame checked
    >
    > So, how is it possible, that the IP throughput drops so drastically,
    > when the screen saver just engages?
    >
    > Wolfi
    >


    How much CPU is the clock module using there? Here it uses very little.
    As Paul mentioned it does run at regular priority. Seems that only the
    CPU intensive savers have an option for idle. You might want to email
    Doodle about the problem.
    Dave

  4. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    Am 09.08.07 20.13 schrieb Dave Yeo:
    > Wolfi wrote:
    >> I just noticed something curious on my W4 FP17+ desktop box with APM
    >> 1.2, while downloading 2 CD isos in parallel, using wget.
    >>
    >> It appeared, that each time when I disengaged Doodle's screen saver,
    >> which had started to display the Cairo clock just moments earlier, by
    >> using the keyboard, the d/l rate for both wget sessions, had dropped
    >> to below 40kB/s in each of them during that time period.
    >>
    >> Before and after the screen saver being active, the rate was around
    >> 200kB/s for each of them. The XCenter IP-Monitor widget then also
    >> showed a downstream rate of around 400kB/s again.
    >>
    >> On the first tab of the power object's settings I have "APM-BIOS and
    >> OS/2 Support active" and the last option within that frame checked
    >>
    >> So, how is it possible, that the IP throughput drops so drastically,
    >> when the screen saver just engages?
    >>
    >> Wolfi
    >>

    >
    > How much CPU is the clock module using there? Here it uses very little.


    How did you find out? When the screen saver engages, I cannot see any of my
    WPS CPU load indicators anymore

    > As Paul mentioned it does run at regular priority. Seems that only the
    > CPU intensive savers have an option for idle. You might want to email
    > Doodle about the problem.


    I only see similar drops, when I'm (re-)loading web pages or scroll a lot
    in Mozilla. This usually puts a 99% CPU load on the system for quite a
    while and also puts quite the brake on an ongoing d/l.

  5. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    Wolfi wrote:
    > Am 09.08.07 20.13 schrieb Dave Yeo:
    >> Wolfi wrote:
    >>> I just noticed something curious on my W4 FP17+ desktop box with APM
    >>> 1.2, while downloading 2 CD isos in parallel, using wget.
    >>>
    >>> It appeared, that each time when I disengaged Doodle's screen saver,
    >>> which had started to display the Cairo clock just moments earlier, by
    >>> using the keyboard, the d/l rate for both wget sessions, had dropped
    >>> to below 40kB/s in each of them during that time period.
    >>>
    >>> Before and after the screen saver being active, the rate was around
    >>> 200kB/s for each of them. The XCenter IP-Monitor widget then also
    >>> showed a downstream rate of around 400kB/s again.
    >>>
    >>> On the first tab of the power object's settings I have "APM-BIOS and
    >>> OS/2 Support active" and the last option within that frame checked
    >>>
    >>> So, how is it possible, that the IP throughput drops so drastically,
    >>> when the screen saver just engages?
    >>>
    >>> Wolfi
    >>>

    >>
    >> How much CPU is the clock module using there? Here it uses very little.

    >
    > How did you find out? When the screen saver engages, I cannot see any of
    > my WPS CPU load indicators anymore


    Let the clock screensaver start, wait a minute then move the mouse and
    look at the warpcenter cpu useage graph. Savers like snow spike the
    graph. The clock one barely registers here.
    >
    >> As Paul mentioned it does run at regular priority. Seems that only the
    >> CPU intensive savers have an option for idle. You might want to email
    >> Doodle about the problem.

    >
    > I only see similar drops, when I'm (re-)loading web pages or scroll a
    > lot in Mozilla. This usually puts a 99% CPU load on the system for quite
    > a while and also puts quite the brake on an ongoing d/l.


    Strange, scrolling here in Mozilla and loading most pages doesn't cause
    a 99% load here. Of course pages with a lot of javascript do cause heavy
    use and those with transparent pngs bring the box to its knees.
    I'm running a 700Mhz Duron, shouldn't be that much faster then your box
    Dave

  6. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    Wolfi wrote:
    >
    > I only see similar drops, when I'm (re-)loading web pages or scroll a lot
    > in Mozilla. This usually puts a 99% CPU load on the system for quite a
    > while and also puts quite the brake on an ongoing d/l.


    Which video adapter do you have? When I switched from a matrox g200 8 MB
    card to an ati radeon 9550 64 MB there was a profound drop in CPU usage
    when displaying pages.
    Or it could be your browser's theme. Create a new profile and see if
    that one also shows high CPU usage.

    --
    jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
    (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

  7. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    Am 10.08.07 12.00 schrieb Jim Moe:
    > Wolfi wrote:
    >> I only see similar drops, when I'm (re-)loading web pages or scroll a lot
    >> in Mozilla. This usually puts a 99% CPU load on the system for quite a
    >> while and also puts quite the brake on an ongoing d/l.

    >
    > Which video adapter do you have? When I switched from a matrox g200 8 MB
    > card to an ati radeon 9550 64 MB there was a profound drop in CPU usage
    > when displaying pages.


    My G450/32MB could be a factor, but with the Mozilla window being minimized
    or invisible in a unfocused XPager window while a browser page is
    (re-)loading, the influence of the graphics card should be eliminated,
    shouldn't it? But it hardly seems to make any difference on the CPU load or
    loading time.

    > Or it could be your browser's theme. Create a new profile and see if
    > that one also shows high CPU usage.

    I only use the regular 'modern' one.


  8. Re: Is engaging the screensaver slowing down a download?

    On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:36:57 UTC, Wolfi wrote:

    > My G450/32MB could be a factor, but with the Mozilla window being minimized
    > or invisible in a unfocused XPager window while a browser page is
    > (re-)loading, the influence of the graphics card should be eliminated,
    > shouldn't it? But it hardly seems to make any difference on the CPU load or
    > loading time.


    Are you using the original Matrox driver? If so that could be a problem
    with apps that use the cairo library. We had to work around a stupid bug
    in the driver, so that the result is that cairo does paint stuff now but
    it is very slow, especially for big graphics (like those in a
    screensaver).
    --
    Greetings, | My From: address is valid as is the version without "spam"
    Peter. | I try to find real messages among the spam once a week

+ Reply to Thread