|
 |
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:42:08 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Patrick Elliott" <sel### [at] rraz net> wrote in message
>
>>until you closed the last window. And that doesn't even mention that
>>fact that, for most tasks, Linux never went above 1-2% processor
>>utilization, where hard tasks could take 24%, like playing video, and on
>>a machine without a dedicated video system for handling stuff, while
>>just opening the application would spike Windows at 70%+.
>
> Are you saying Linux wastes 98 - 99% of the CPU? Typical 1-2% CPU
> utilization and a cap at 24% tells me that that particular system or
> Linux has a severe bottleneck somewhere else.
>
> It of course won't happen, but an ideally balanced system should show
> 100% utilization in all active subsystems when performing
> non-interactive tasks like launching an application, for instance. Low
> CPU usage can be a symptom of poor disk caching.
No, I'd say that it's because Linux is a bit more efficient in its use of
the processor. I wouldn't expect to see 100% utilization unless I was
actually running a highly intensive application like POV-Ray that
actually needed the CPU. Launching a program is kid's stuff - no reason
for that to suck 100% of the CPU.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
