PDA

View Full Version : Possible New Light on 99% CPU Util Issue



Neil Cameron
2004-07-27, 02:38
I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought I'd
share it.
Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer issue
is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
Others report similar issues.
I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.

Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to the
other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a web
session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the Browser.
Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced to 2%.
This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress bar was
stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure enough -
98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
immediately down to 1%.
Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server side?
And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
--
Neil

Neil Cameron
2004-07-27, 08:57
I've confirmed this over half a dozen times today. With two Squeezeboxes
running if there is any problem pausing or stopping, I check the server and
slim.exe is a runaway - as soon as I close the Browser Window it kicks off
playing OK immediately.
It seems as though the slim.exe process is being overwhelmed servicing the
Browser updates.
Any ideas?
--
Neil

"Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:ce57rk$ff8$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought I'd
> share it.
> Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer
issue
> is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
> streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
> Others report similar issues.
> I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
> shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
> rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.
>
> Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to the
> other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a web
> session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the
Browser.
> Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced to
2%.
> This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress bar
was
> stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure
enough -
> 98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
> immediately down to 1%.
> Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server
side?
> And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
> --
> Neil

Ken Anderson
2004-07-27, 09:01
Is your laptop connected via wireless, or wired?

On Jul 27, 2004, at 11:57 AM, Neil Cameron wrote:

> I've confirmed this over half a dozen times today. With two
> Squeezeboxes
> running if there is any problem pausing or stopping, I check the
> server and
> slim.exe is a runaway - as soon as I close the Browser Window it kicks
> off
> playing OK immediately.
> It seems as though the slim.exe process is being overwhelmed servicing
> the
> Browser updates.
> Any ideas?
> --
> Neil
>
> "Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
> news:ce57rk$ff8$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
>> I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought
>> I'd
>> share it.
>> Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer
> issue
>> is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
>> streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
>> Others report similar issues.
>> I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
>> shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
>> rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.
>>
>> Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to
>> the
>> other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a
>> web
>> session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the
> Browser.
>> Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced
>> to
> 2%.
>> This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress
>> bar
> was
>> stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure
> enough -
>> 98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
>> immediately down to 1%.
>> Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server
> side?
>> And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
>> --
>> Neil
>
>
>
>

Neil Cameron
2004-07-27, 09:06
Wireless...but with a good 11 Mbps signal within 10 metres of WAP.
--
Neil

"Ken Anderson" <lists (AT) anderhome (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:45F6FDA2-DFE6-11D8-B3F3-000A95B552C2 (AT) anderhome (DOT) com...
> Is your laptop connected via wireless, or wired?
>
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 11:57 AM, Neil Cameron wrote:
>
> > I've confirmed this over half a dozen times today. With two
> > Squeezeboxes
> > running if there is any problem pausing or stopping, I check the
> > server and
> > slim.exe is a runaway - as soon as I close the Browser Window it kicks
> > off
> > playing OK immediately.
> > It seems as though the slim.exe process is being overwhelmed servicing
> > the
> > Browser updates.
> > Any ideas?
> > --
> > Neil
> >
> > "Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
> > news:ce57rk$ff8$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> >> I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought
> >> I'd
> >> share it.
> >> Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer
> > issue
> >> is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
> >> streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
> >> Others report similar issues.
> >> I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
> >> shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
> >> rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.
> >>
> >> Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to
> >> the
> >> other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a
> >> web
> >> session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the
> > Browser.
> >> Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced
> >> to
> > 2%.
> >> This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress
> >> bar
> > was
> >> stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure
> > enough -
> >> 98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
> >> immediately down to 1%.
> >> Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server
> > side?
> >> And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
> >> --
> >> Neil
> >
> >
> >
> >

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-07-27, 19:26
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:26:27 -0400
"Chris Wood" <downonthecorner (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> Slimserver and realslim both startup as services when I boot Windows.
> I start rhapsody and listen away with no problems for 3 or 4 hours. I
> notice that when I check back on the pc and look in the task manager
> "svchost.exe" is the one hogging the cpu. Depending on how long I've
> let everything run it will typically be up around 80% after 4 hours.
> Leaving things running will see it rise all the way up to 99%. If I
> sit and watch the task manager I notice that the memory size of
> "lsass.exe" is jumping up constantly at the same time at around
> 65,000K... If I clean boot the pc the memory size of"lsass.exe" starts
> out at 1,120K and stays that way until I start streaming content to
> the squeezebox.

That sure sounds like virus activity to me. See
http://ask-leo.com/archives/000105.html for some more information. I'd
suggest updating your system with Windows Update and bringing your virus
scanner definitions up to date. Then do a full scan on your machine.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
"Angry men in combat fatigues talking to God on a two-way
radio and muttering incoherent slogans about freedom are
eventually going to provide us with a great deal of
entertainment." - George Carlin
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Terrence Jones
2004-08-03, 14:53
I've seen this sort of behavior before as well. However, I have always
assumed that the _reason_ the web browser is hung up is _because_ of the 99%
utilization. If the slim process is bogged down for whatever reason, it
makes sense that it wouldn't respond to web requests. All of this is to say
that I don't think the web interface is causing the problem, I think it is
just another symptom of the issue.

-- Terrence


"Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:ce5u1u$81p$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> I've confirmed this over half a dozen times today. With two Squeezeboxes
> running if there is any problem pausing or stopping, I check the server
and
> slim.exe is a runaway - as soon as I close the Browser Window it kicks off
> playing OK immediately.
> It seems as though the slim.exe process is being overwhelmed servicing the
> Browser updates.
> Any ideas?
> --
> Neil
>
> "Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
> news:ce57rk$ff8$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> > I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought I'd
> > share it.
> > Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer
> issue
> > is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
> > streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
> > Others report similar issues.
> > I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
> > shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
> > rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.
> >
> > Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to the
> > other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a web
> > session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the
> Browser.
> > Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced to
> 2%.
> > This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress bar
> was
> > stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure
> enough -
> > 98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
> > immediately down to 1%.
> > Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server
> side?
> > And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
> > --
> > Neil

Neil Cameron
2004-08-04, 01:46
Then why does the problem disappear the moment I close the Browser?
--
Neil

"Terrence Jones" <brinko99 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:cep1hf$sbo$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> I've seen this sort of behavior before as well. However, I have always
> assumed that the _reason_ the web browser is hung up is _because_ of the
99%
> utilization. If the slim process is bogged down for whatever reason, it
> makes sense that it wouldn't respond to web requests. All of this is to
say
> that I don't think the web interface is causing the problem, I think it is
> just another symptom of the issue.
>
> -- Terrence
>
>
> "Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
> news:ce5u1u$81p$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> > I've confirmed this over half a dozen times today. With two
Squeezeboxes
> > running if there is any problem pausing or stopping, I check the server
> and
> > slim.exe is a runaway - as soon as I close the Browser Window it kicks
off
> > playing OK immediately.
> > It seems as though the slim.exe process is being overwhelmed servicing
the
> > Browser updates.
> > Any ideas?
> > --
> > Neil
> >
> > "Neil Cameron" <ncameron (AT) msn (DOT) com> wrote in message
> > news:ce57rk$ff8$1 (AT) sea (DOT) gmane.org...
> > > I'm not technical enough to know if this is relevant, but I thought
I'd
> > > share it.
> > > Apart from dealing with WLAN interference, my only current SlimServer
> > issue
> > > is occasional 98-99% CPU utilisation on my Win XP server which causes
> > > streaming to Squeezeboxes to be poor or to stop.
> > > Others report similar issues.
> > > I thought it had been solved a few times - e.g recursive music folder
> > > shorcuts - but it always came back. I originally thought it was a
> > > rescanning issue, but I don;t think so now.
> > >
> > > Yesterday I noticed that it had happened again; on a whim I went to
the
> > > other room (where I work and where my laptop is constantly running a
web
> > > session to slimserver so I can control my listening) and closed the
> > Browser.
> > > Going back to the server the slim.exe session had immediately reduced
to
> > 2%.
> > > This morning it was behaving OK; then I noticed that the IE progress
bar
> > was
> > > stuck in the SlimServer Browser Window. I went to the server; sure
> > enough -
> > > 98% CPU for slim.exe. I closed the laptop Browsere Window - slim.exe
> > > immediately down to 1%.
> > > Does this mean that the CPU issue is solely related to the web server
> > side?
> > > And, what debug facility do I turn on the check this theory?
> > > --
> > > Neil