Search Results

Search found 5572 results on 223 pages for 'cpu'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 19/223 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • How could Load average numbers from 'htop' exceed 100% CPU utlization?

    - by Joe Huang
    I use 'htop' to monitor my web server. It's recently quite loaded and the Load average is showing something like this: Load average: 3.10 2.56 1.63 I searched the web about these numbers and I found an article about it: http://blog.scoutapp.com/articles/2009/07/31/understanding-load-averages In the article, it says if I have 2 CPUs, 2.0 means 100% CPU utilization. And my VPS has two CPUs, so what does 3.1 mean? How could it exceed 100% CPU utilization? And from these numbers, does it mean I should be wary about the loading now? But the performance seems totally fine, and this is a managed VPS, the hosting company has not notified me any warning about it. During day time, Load average always show these high numbers... here is another snapshot while writing. Load average: 3.03 2.77 1.97 Load average: 0.41 1.29 1.60 <---- 5 more minutes later So I am wondering how much room left for this site to grow in current configurations? What kind of proactive actions I should take in advance? I don't want to wait until the server bursts. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • My client's solution of a Windows SBS 2011 VM on an Ubuntu host and VirtualBox is pinning the host CPU

    - by Scott Stamp
    Here's my situation, I've got a client hosting two servers (one VM), with the host providing VMware Zimbra, the other Windows Small Business Server 2011. Unfortunately, the person before me had configured this setup as follows. Host: Ubuntu Desktop Edition 10.04 (I know, again, not my choice) running VMware Zimbra 8GB of RAM On-board RAID1 of two 320GB Seagate Barracuda drives for the OS Software RAID5 of four 500GB WD Caviar Black drives on MDADM for bulk storage (sorry, I don't know the model #) A relatively competent quad-core Intel Core i7 CPU from the Nehalem architecture (not suspicious of this as the bottleneck) Guest: Windows Small Business Server 2011 4GB of RAM Host-equivalent CPU allocation VDI file for OS hosted on the on-board RAID, VDI file for storage hosted on the on-board RAID For some reason when running, the VM locks up when sitting nearly idle, and the VirtualBox process reports values of 240%+ in top (how is that even possible?!). Anyone have any ideas or suggestions? I'm totally stumped on this one. Happy to provide whatever logs you'd like to take a look at. Ideally I'd drop VirtualBox and provision this with VMware Workstation, but the client has objected to the (very nominal) costs involved. If hardware needs to be purchased to help, it will be, but we're considering upgrades a last-resort at this time. Thanks in advance! *fingers crossed*

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 notebook turn off by itself, how to check if it is due to CPU being too hot?

    - by Jian Lin
    I have a Dell Studio 15 notebook, and it just started turning off by itself yesterday. Could it be that the CPU is too hot? I have had several notebooks before and every one of them I can put them on the bed without any problem. This Dell Studio Notebook, however, seems like have the air / fan outlet pointed outward from the bottom back of the notebook, so I suspect that the air is partially blocked when it is on the bed. Are there Win 7 tools that can monitor the CPU temperature, or will some 3rd party tool be needed? (I try to stick to official tools nowadays). Also, it is running Win 7 Ulitmate, there is actually no utility or background service from Win 7 or from Dell that detects when the temperature is too hot (or 95% near the max), pop out a message box giving a warning and say that the computer will go into sleep mode in 1 minute, but instead just turn off the computer by brute force (cutting out the power) right then and there? Update: it turned off right in front of my eyes -- it is not doing any windows update or anything. just normal use and jooooop, it turned off.

    Read the article

  • (Win7) Gets stuck with ~1% CPU. Especially with multithreading

    - by meow
    Windows 7 32 bit, up to date, Intel i7 860. (For some reason the company runs 32bit Windows everywhere.) I tried to update all motherboard drivers etc. as far as possible. I have a performance issue with a machine which appears in connection with multithreading (or so I think). As an example (and where I most often see it, but it appears on other programs as well): ProteoWizard is a file conversion tool for mass spectrometry files. I can add a list of files and it will attempt to process up to 8 files in parallel (quadcore x 2 threads/core). If I choose 1 to 6 files, I start the process and it goes straight through. If I have =7 files in the queue, conversion goes to ~20%, then gets stuck for 15 seconds, then continues again, always in "chunks" of a few % before getting stuck again. During the time the process is stuck, CPU is at 1%. RAM is not limiting, it is maybe at 70% or so and not going up. I don't get the same problem on other, even slower machines. The computer gets also stuck at 1% CPU doing nothing on other occasions, but for multithreading it is most frequent. Where should I look for the problem?

    Read the article

  • Linux 'top' utility widly inaccurate (more so for multi-CPU/core hardware)?

    - by amn
    Hi all. After using 'top' for long time, albeit basically, I have grown to distrust it's '% CPU' column reports. I have a 8-core (quad core Intel i7 920 with hyperthreading) hardware, and see some wild numbers when running a process that should not use more than 5% overall. top happily reports 50%, and I suspect it is not so. My question is, is it a known fact that it's inaccurate when several CPUs/cores are present? I used 'mpstat' from the 'sysstat' package, and it's showings are much more conservative, certainly within my expectations. I did press '1' for 'top' to switch it to show all the core and us/sy/io stats, but the numbers are substantially higher than with 'mpstat'... I know that my expectations can be unfound as well, but my gut feeling tells me 'top' is wrong! :-) The reason I need to know is because the process I am monitoring only guarantees quality of service with CPU usage "less than 80%" (however vague that sounds), and I need to know how much headroom I have left. It's a streaming server.

    Read the article

  • Impact of the L3 cache on performance - worth a dual-processor system?

    - by Dan Nissenbaum
    I will be purchasing a new high-end system, and I would like to have a better sense of whether a dual-processor Xeon system (I am looking at the new, high-end Xeon E5-2687W) might, realistically, provide a noticeable performance improvement due to the doubling of the L3 cache (20 MB per CPU). (This is in addition to the occasional added advantage due to the doubling of cores and RAM.) My usage scenario is, roughly, that I have many background applications running at any time - 3 or 4 data compression/backup applications, a low-impact web server, one or two virtual machines at any given time (usually fairly idle), and perhaps 20 utility programs that utilize a noticeable (but small) portion of the CPU cores. In total, when I am not actively using the computer, about 25% of the total CPU power is utilized in my current i7-970 6-core (12 thread) system. When I am doing routine work, the CPU utilization often exceeds 50%, and occasionally hits 75%-80%. The Xeon E5-2687W is not only a second-generation i7 (so should improve performance for that reason), but also has 8 cores (16 threads), rather than 6 cores. For this reason, I expect to run into the 75% CPU range even less frequently. Nonetheless, the ability to double the cores and the RAM is a consideration. However, in the end, I believe this decision comes down to whether the doubling of the L3 cache will provide a noticeable improvement. There are many benchmarks, and a lot of discussion, regarding CPU power. However, I find very little discussion of L3 cache utilization, and how increases in the L3 cache (such as doubling it with dual processors) affect performance. For example: If there are only two processes running, but each benefits from a large L3 cache (such as might be the case for background processes that frequently scan the file system), perhaps the overall system performance might noticeably improve with dual CPU's - even if only a single core is active on each CPU - due to each process having double the effective L3 cache. I am hoping that someone has a sense of the benefits of increasing (or doubling) the L3 cache size. Note: the CPU I am considering (the Xeon E5-2687W) has 20 MB L3 cache, so a system with dual CPU's would have 40 MB L3 cache.

    Read the article

  • Why do we need different CPU architecture for server & mini/mainframe & mixed-core?

    - by claws
    Hello, I was just wondering what other CPU architectures are available other than INTEL & AMD. So, found List of CPU architectures on Wikipedia. It categorizes notable CPU architectures into following categories. Embedded CPU architectures Microcomputer CPU architectures Workstation/Server CPU architectures Mini/Mainframe CPU architectures Mixed core CPU architectures I was analyzing the purposes and have few doubts. I taking Microcomputer CPU (PC) architecture as reference and comparing others. Embedded CPU architecture: They are a completely new world. Embedded systems are small & do very specific task mostly real time & low power consuming so we do not need so many & such wide registers available in a microcomputer CPU (typical PC). In other words we do need a new small & tiny architecture. Hence new architecture & new instruction RISC. The above point also clarifies why do we need a separate operating system (RTOS). Workstation/Server CPU architectures I don't know what is a workstation. Someone clarify regarding the workstation. As of the server. It is dedicated to run a specific software (server software like httpd, mysql etc.). Even if other processes run we need to give server process priority therefore there is a need for new scheduling scheme and thus we need operating system different than general purpose one. If you have any more points for the need of server OS please mention. But I don't get why do we need a new CPU Architecture. Why cant Microcomputer CPU architecture do the job. Can someone please clarify? Mini/Mainframe CPU architectures Again I don't know what are these & what miniframes or mainframes used for? I just know they are very big and occupy complete floor. But I never read about some real world problems they are trying to solve. If any one working on one of these. Share your knowledge. Can some one clarify its purpose & why is it that microcomputer CPU archicture not suitable for it? Is there a new kind of operating system for this too? Why? Mixed core CPU architectures Never heard of these. If possible please keep your answer in this format: XYZ CPU architectures Purpose of XYZ Need for a new architecture. why can't current microcomputer CPU architecture work? They go upto 3GHZ & have upto 8 cores. Need for a new Operating System Why do we need a new kind of operating system for this kind of archictures?

    Read the article

  • Ivy bridge i3 recognized as Xeon e3-1200

    - by user287072
    The situation: I've got a Ivy bridge i3 3225 which is being recognized as a Xeon e3-1200 series cpu by Ubuntu 14.04 64bit. The problem: cpu fan makes more noise than necessary (under dual-boot Win8 the fans are off), cannot install the intel graphics drivers from 01.org. Goals: - find a fix for the load fans could be they are not CPU related, I've tried some fan controller packages, but they made no difference. - get the intel graphics to install (this now fails as xeon cpu's are not supported, I got the package working on a i5 laptop) - get to know some more about how hardware recognition works Tried so far: - a reinstall of Ubuntu, but it was recognized again as a Xeon cpu. - different fan control packages, but they either do not recognized the fans, or just keep fan speed to high. Any pointers as how to get Ubuntu recognized it are more than welcome. lspci -nnQ 00:00.0 Host bridge [0600]: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor DRAM Controller [8086:0150] (rev 09) 00:01.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation Xeon E3-1200 v2/3rd Gen Core processor PCI Express Root Port [8086:0151] (rev 09) 00:14.0 USB controller [0c03]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB xHCI Host Controller [8086:1e31] (rev 04) 00:16.0 Communication controller [0780]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 [8086:1e3a] (rev 04) 00:1a.0 USB controller [0c03]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 [8086:1e2d] (rev 04) 00:1b.0 Audio device [0403]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family High Definition Audio Controller [8086:1e20] (rev 04) 00:1c.0 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 1 [8086:1e10] (rev c4) 00:1c.5 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 6 [8086:1e1a] (rev c4) 00:1c.6 PCI bridge [0604]: Intel Corporation 82801 PCI Bridge [8086:244e] (rev c4) 00:1d.0 USB controller [0c03]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 [8086:1e26] (rev 04) 00:1f.0 ISA bridge [0601]: Intel Corporation Z77 Express Chipset LPC Controller [8086:1e44] (rev 04) 00:1f.2 SATA controller [0106]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family 6-port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] [8086:1e02] (rev 04) 00:1f.3 SMBus [0c05]: Intel Corporation 7 Series/C210 Series Chipset Family SMBus Controller [8086:1e22] (rev 04) 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller [0300]: NVIDIA Corporation GK106 [GeForce GTX 660] [10de:11c0] (rev a1) 01:00.1 Audio device [0403]: NVIDIA Corporation GK106 HDMI Audio Controller [10de:0e0b] (rev a1) 03:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller [10ec:8168] (rev 09) 04:00.0 PCI bridge [0604]: ASMedia Technology Inc. ASM1083/1085 PCIe to PCI Bridge [1b21:1080] (rev 03)

    Read the article

  • why does Virtualbox use 15-20% CPU when VM is paused?

    - by laramichaels
    Hello, I run VirtualBox 3.1 on Ubuntu with a Win XP guest. I have noticed to my surprise that when I pause the VM (its screen grays out) VirtualBox continues using 15-20% of the host's CPU. Is this normal behavior? Is there a way to avoid it? (Without saving the state of the VM and exiting VirtualBox.) Thanks for any insights! ~lara

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to limit how much CPU a virtual machine can use with VMWare Player?

    - by Raz
    Is it possible to limit how much CPU a virtual machine can use with VMWare Player? I use VMWare to run a Windows XP virtual machine. I want to keep it on in the background all the time. The real computer runs Windows 7 and is sometimes a little bit short of memory. That's why I want to check if I can throttle the VM down to the bare minimum to keep it running in the background constantly without interfering too much.

    Read the article

  • Anyone know why the Intel q9400 cpu is embedded?

    - by Wil
    I was just looking through the Intel site and I came across this - http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=28398 Anyone know why the 9400 has a tick in the embedded column? I have tried to contact Intel and not had a response. I have looked around but cannot find any additional reference and it seems to be available from shops just like any other CPU. Anyone have any ideas?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server suddenly using only a small portion of CPU.

    - by hermiod
    We've got a Windows 2008 R2 server running SQL Server 2008. All of a sudden, the SQLServer process is refusing to go above 20% CPU usage. As of last week, when running a heavy query against the db it would rise to 100% usage as I would expect. We've had this server for a while and it seems strange that it would just suddenly have this limit. This limit is causing our queries to take a lot longer than they normally would. No one has (knowingly at least) made any changes to the server configuration. After a bit of investigation, I discovered the sys.dm_os_sys_memory view. This shows 'available physical memory is high' bu at the same time the available physical memory is 339552kb where as the total is 4193848kb. It is worth noting that this is a virtual server running on vmware. Is there a setting somewhere with in SQL Server that sets the maximum CPU usage? I've found the settings in resource governor, although this is currently off as it always has been. We have recently started using Spotlight for SQL Server by Quest Software. It's playback database was located on this server for a short time this morning, I first noticed the problem shortly afterwards, although I hadn't been doing any queries prior to this so I don't know if this is the point at which the problem began, however the database was working as expected on Friday afternoon. The Windows log shows that the following settings were applied to the SpotlightPlaybackDatabase when it was created. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option TORN_PAGE_DETECTION to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option MULTI_USER to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option READ_WRITE to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option AUTO_UPDATE_STATISTICS to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option AUTO_CREATE_STATISTICS to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option ANSI_WARNINGS to OFF for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option CONCAT_NULL_YIELDS_NULL to ON for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option RECOVERY to SIMPLE for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option QUOTED_IDENTIFIER to OFF for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. 02/21/2011 08:45:02,spid60,Unknown,Setting database option AUTO_CLOSE to OFF for database SpotlightPlaybackDatabase. Could any of these settings changes modified the settings applied to the whole server?

    Read the article

  • How add cpu frequency that should be available?

    - by Andrew Redd
    I have a system with an Intel Core i7 970 that should be able to run at 3.2 GHz. I'm running ubuntu 12.04 and installed the cpufreq indicator to be able to change the governor and noticed that I only had frequencies up to 2.0 GHz available to me. I set to performance and checked with cpufreq-info cpufreq-info -c 0 cpufrequtils 007: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009 Report errors and bugs to [email protected], please. analyzing CPU 0: driver: acpi-cpufreq CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 maximum transition latency: 10.0 us. hardware limits: 1.60 GHz - 2.00 GHz available frequency steps: 2.00 GHz, 1.86 GHz, 1.73 GHz, 1.60 GHz available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance current policy: frequency should be within 1.60 GHz and 2.00 GHz. The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use within this range. current CPU frequency is 2.00 GHz (asserted by call to hardware). cpufreq stats: 2.00 GHz:4.93%, 1.86 GHz:0.03%, 1.73 GHz:0.02%, 1.60 GHz:95.02% (718654) And to double check: $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies 1995000 1862000 1729000 1596000 How do I get all the frequencies that I should have available to me, all up to the 3.2 GHz?

    Read the article

  • CPU Wars Is a Trump-Style Card Game Driven by Chip Stats

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    If you’re looking for the geekiest card game around, you’d be hard pressed to beat CPU Wars–a top-trumps card game built around CPU specs. From the game’s designers: CPU Wars is a trump card game built by geeks for geeks. For Volume 1.0 we chose 30 CPUs that we believe had the greatest impact on the desktop history. The game is ideally played by 2 or 3 people. The deck is split between the players and then each player takes a turn and picks a category that they think has the best value. We have chosen the most important specs that could be numerically represented, such as maximum speed achieved and maximum number of transistors. It’s lots of fun, it has a bit of strategy and can be played during a break or over a coffee. If you’re interested, you can pick up a copy for £7.99 (roughly $12.50 USD). Hit up the link below for more information. How To Customize Your Wallpaper with Google Image Searches, RSS Feeds, and More 47 Keyboard Shortcuts That Work in All Web Browsers How To Hide Passwords in an Encrypted Drive Even the FBI Can’t Get Into

    Read the article

  • How to diagnose Ubuntu CPU spikes / IO wait?

    - by Jeff Welling
    I'm using Ubuntu and every couple minutes it goes unresponsive for a half second to a full second, which isn't normally a problem but makes trying to code extremely frustrating when your trying to hit backspace or navigate the code and nothing is happening. The problem is, the freezes are so brief that top doesn't have time to show me what is spiking the CPU (assuming something is, but I don't know what else could cause this). Does anyone know how to troubleshoot this performance issue? Edit: I've tried login in with Gnome Classic (No Effects) instead of Unity but it still freezes up every once in awhile. Edit: The CPU graph doesn't seem to be showing any actual spikes so it seems you were right and my original diagnosis of CPU spikes being the problem was incorrect, I now suspect IO wait. I don't recall this happening for the brief few weeks I had Windows 7 Starter running on it though, which leads me to believe it isn't (just?) the hardware.. is there anything I can tweak to improve this? I'm using an Acer Aspire One D257, with Ubuntu 11.10. Edit: Output of dmesg is at http://paste.ubuntu.com/1060054/ and kern.log is at http://paste.ubuntu.com/1060055/

    Read the article

  • What does "cpuid level" means ? Asking just for curiosity

    - by ogzylz
    For example, I put just 2 core info of a 16 core machine. What does "cpuid level : 6" line means? If u can provide info about lines "bogomips : 5992.10" and "clflush size : 64" I will be appreciated ------------- processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 6 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz stepping : 8 cpu MHz : 2992.689 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 4 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 6 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx cid cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips : 5992.10 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 128 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 6 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz stepping : 8 cpu MHz : 2992.689 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 1 siblings : 4 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 6 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx cid cx16 xtpr lahf_lm bogomips : 5985.23 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 128 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management:

    Read the article

  • Java - Error Message Help

    - by Brian
    In the Code, mem is a of Class Memory and getMDR and getMAR ruturn ints. When I try to compile the code I get the following errors.....how can I fix this? Computer.java:25: write(int,int) in Memory cannot be applied to (int) Input.getInt(mem.write(cpu.getMDR())); ^ Computer.java:28: write(int,int) in Memory cannot be applied to (int) mem.write(cpu.getMAR()); Here is the code for Computer: class Computer{ private Cpu cpu; private Input in; private OutPut out; private Memory mem; public Computer() { Memory mem = new Memory(100); Input in = new Input(); OutPut out = new OutPut(); Cpu cpu = new Cpu(); System.out.println(in.getInt()); } public void run() { cpu.reset(); cpu.setMDR(mem.read(cpu.getMAR())); cpu.fetch2(); while (!cpu.stop()) { cpu.decode(); if (cpu.OutFlag()) OutPut.display(mem.read(cpu.getMAR())); if (cpu.InFlag()) Input.getInt(mem.write(cpu.getMDR())); if (cpu.StoreFlag()) { mem.write(cpu.getMAR()); cpu.getMDR(); } else { cpu.setMDR(mem.read(cpu.getMAR())); cpu.execute(); cpu.fetch(); cpu.setMDR(mem.read(cpu.getMAR())); cpu.fetch2(); } } } Here is the code for Memory: class Memory{ private MemEl[] memArray; private int size; public Memory(int s) {size = s; memArray = new MemEl[s]; for(int i = 0; i < s; i++) memArray[i] = new MemEl(); } public void write (int loc, int val) {if (loc >=0 && loc < size) memArray[loc].write(val); else System.out.println("Index Not in Domain"); } public int read (int loc) {return memArray[loc].read(); } public void dump() { for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) if(i%1 == 0) System.out.println(memArray[i].read()); else System.out.print(memArray[i].read()); } } Here is the code for getMAR and getMDR: public int getMAR() { return ir.getOpcode(); } public int getMDR() { return mdr.read(); }

    Read the article

  • Lenovo V570 CPU fan running constantly, CPU core 1 running over 90%!

    - by Rabbit2190
    I have seen that a lot of people are having this same issue. I am running a Lenovo V570 i5 4 core, 6 gigs of ram, and am running 11.10 Onieric Ocelot. On my system monitor graph it shows CPU at 20%, when I open the monitor it shows core #1 at around 90%, the other cores fluctuate at or below 5-12% if even. Now this seems like a really terrible balance of power between the cores, especially with so much stress on one core only, when these things are designed to work with 4 cores and not at such high temps. My current readings say 64 degrees Celsius, this does not seem normal for any cpu, and I am seriously considering, working on my windows7 partition until I see a real solution to this issue or upgrading to 12.04 right away when it comes out... I have seen countless things saying it has something to do with the Kernel, the kernel on mine is the same as when I upgraded, I really do not like messing with it, as when I had 11.04, I did tinker with it due to the freeze issues I was having, and that just made worse issues. I like this version 11.10 and would like to keep it for a while, but without the fear that my core is going to fry! So any help would be much appreciated! I did try changing a couple things in ACPI, and restarting this did not help, and here I am. I tried one thing prior to that that was listed under a different computer brand, but it would not do a make on the file. I really need help with this, I rely on this computer for a lot of things, and love this OS! Please help so I do not need to resort to my Microsoft partition! PLEASE! Here is the fwts cpufrequ- output: rabbit@rabbit-Lenovo-V570:~$ sudo fwts cpufreq - 00001 fwts Results generated by fwts: Version V0.23.25 (Thu Oct 6 15 00002 fwts :12:31 BST 2011). 00003 fwts 00004 fwts Some of this work - Copyright (c) 1999 - 2010, Intel Corp. 00005 fwts All rights reserved. 00006 fwts Some of this work - Copyright (c) 2010 - 2011, Canonical. 00007 fwts 00008 fwts This test run on 02/04/12 at 17:23:22 on host Linux 00009 fwts rabbit-Lenovo-V570 3.0.0-17-generic-pae #30-Ubuntu SMP Thu 00010 fwts Mar 8 17:53:35 UTC 2012 i686. 00011 fwts 00012 fwts Running tests: cpufreq. 00014 cpufreq CPU frequency scaling tests (takes ~1-2 mins). 00015 cpufreq --------------------------------------------------------- 00016 cpufreq Test 1 of 1: CPU P-State Checks. 00017 cpufreq For each processor in the system, this test steps through 00018 cpufreq the various frequency states (P-states) that the BIOS 00019 cpufreq advertises for the processor. For each processor/frequency 00020 cpufreq combination, a quick performance value is measured. The 00021 cpufreq test then validates that: 00022 cpufreq 1) Each processor has the same number of frequency states 00023 cpufreq 2) Higher advertised frequencies have a higher performance 00024 cpufreq 3) No duplicate frequency values are reported by the BIOS 00025 cpufreq 4) Is BIOS wrongly doing Sw_All P-state coordination across cores 00026 cpufreq 5) Is BIOS wrongly doing Sw_Any P-state coordination across cores 00027 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00028 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00029 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 100.0 % 00030 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 83.7 % 00031 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 69.2 % 00032 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 62.5 % 00033 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 55.2 % 00034 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.6 % 00035 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.8 % 00036 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.5 % 00037 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.6 % 00038 cpufreq 9 CPU frequency steps supported 00039 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00040 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00041 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 97.7 % 00042 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 83.7 % 00043 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 69.6 % 00044 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 63.3 % 00045 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 55.7 % 00046 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.7 % 00047 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.7 % 00048 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.5 % 00049 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.5 % 00050 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00051 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00052 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 97.7 % 00053 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 84.4 % 00054 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 69.6 % 00055 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 62.6 % 00056 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 55.9 % 00057 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.7 % 00058 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.7 % 00059 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.7 % 00060 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.8 % 00061 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00062 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00063 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 100.0 % 00064 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 82.6 % 00065 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 67.8 % 00066 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 61.4 % 00067 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 54.9 % 00068 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.3 % 00069 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.1 % 00070 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.3 % 00071 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.4 % 00072 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00073 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00074 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 96.2 % 00075 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 82.5 % 00076 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 69.3 % 00077 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 62.7 % 00078 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 55.0 % 00079 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 47.4 % 00080 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.1 % 00081 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.0 % 00082 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.2 % 00083 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00084 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00085 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 96.5 % 00086 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 83.6 % 00087 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 68.1 % 00088 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 61.7 % 00089 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 54.9 % 00090 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.0 % 00091 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.1 % 00092 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.2 % 00093 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.8 % 00094 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00095 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00096 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 96.4 % 00097 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 82.6 % 00098 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 68.8 % 00099 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 60.5 % 00100 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 52.4 % 00101 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.8 % 00102 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.1 % 00103 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.2 % 00104 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 26.4 % 00105 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00106 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00107 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 95.3 % 00108 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 82.5 % 00109 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 65.5 % 00110 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 62.8 % 00111 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 54.8 % 00112 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.0 % 00113 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.2 % 00114 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.2 % 00115 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.3 % 00116 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00117 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00118 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 96.3 % 00119 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 83.4 % 00120 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 68.3 % 00121 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 61.9 % 00122 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 54.9 % 00123 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 48.0 % 00124 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 41.1 % 00125 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 34.2 % 00126 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 27.3 % 00127 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00128 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00129 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 100.0 % 00130 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 77.9 % 00131 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 64.6 % 00132 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 54.0 % 00133 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 51.7 % 00134 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 45.2 % 00135 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 39.0 % 00136 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 33.1 % 00137 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 25.5 % 00138 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00139 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00140 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 93.4 % 00141 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 75.7 % 00142 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 64.5 % 00143 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 59.1 % 00144 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 51.4 % 00145 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 45.9 % 00146 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 39.3 % 00147 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 32.7 % 00148 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 25.8 % 00149 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00150 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00151 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 92.1 % 00152 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 78.1 % 00153 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 65.7 % 00154 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 58.6 % 00155 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 52.5 % 00156 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 45.7 % 00157 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 39.3 % 00158 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 32.7 % 00159 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 24.3 % 00160 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00161 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00162 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 88.9 % 00163 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 79.8 % 00164 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 58.4 % 00165 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 52.6 % 00166 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 46.9 % 00167 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 41.0 % 00168 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 35.1 % 00169 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 29.1 % 00170 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 22.9 % 00171 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00172 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00173 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 92.8 % 00174 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 80.1 % 00175 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 66.2 % 00176 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 59.5 % 00177 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 52.9 % 00178 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 46.2 % 00179 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 39.5 % 00180 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 32.9 % 00181 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 26.3 % 00182 cpufreq Frequency | Speed 00183 cpufreq -----------+--------- 00184 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 92.9 % 00185 cpufreq 2.45 Ghz | 79.5 % 00186 cpufreq 2.05 Ghz | 66.2 % 00187 cpufreq 1.85 Ghz | 59.6 % 00188 cpufreq 1.65 Ghz | 52.9 % 00189 cpufreq 1400 Mhz | 46.7 % 00190 cpufreq 1200 Mhz | 39.6 % 00191 cpufreq 1000 Mhz | 32.9 % 00192 cpufreq 800 Mhz | 26.3 % 00193 cpufreq FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqCPUsSetToSW_ANY: Test 1, Processors 00194 cpufreq are set to SW_ANY. 00195 cpufreq FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSW_ANY: Test 1, Firmware not 00196 cpufreq implementing hardware coordination cleanly. Firmware using 00197 cpufreq SW_ANY instead?. 00198 cpufreq 00199 cpufreq ========================================================= 00200 cpufreq 0 passed, 2 failed, 0 warnings, 0 aborted, 0 skipped, 0 00201 cpufreq info only. 00202 cpufreq ========================================================= 00204 summary 00205 summary 0 passed, 2 failed, 0 warnings, 0 aborted, 0 skipped, 0 00206 summary info only. 00207 summary 00208 summary Test Failure Summary 00209 summary ==================== 00210 summary 00211 summary Critical failures: NONE 00212 summary 00213 summary High failures: NONE 00214 summary 00215 summary Medium failures: 2 00216 summary cpufreq test, at 1 log line: 193 00217 summary "Processors are set to SW_ANY." 00218 summary cpufreq test, at 1 log line: 195 00219 summary "Firmware not implementing hardware coordination cleanly. Firmware using SW_ANY instead?." 00220 summary 00221 summary Low failures: NONE 00222 summary 00223 summary Other failures: NONE 00224 summary 00225 summary Test |Pass |Fail |Abort|Warn |Skip |Info | 00226 summary ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 00227 summary cpufreq | | 2| | | | | 00228 summary ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 00229 summary Total: | 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 00230 summary ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ rabbit@rabbit-Lenovo-V570:~$

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >