RE: 100% CPU

Adam Haberlach (
Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:20:52 -0700


- -----Original Message-----
From: Jensen Harris []
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 1997 5:53 PM
Cc: Deschall
Subject: Re: 100% CPU

On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Scott McIntyre wrote:

>At this point I was ready to strangle to guy.
I'm about there with our engineering support. Fortunately, his
last message was simple "we're not interested", which to me
means that they aren't willing to write the scripts I was
talking about (which is fine--I wasn't asking them too). We'll
see if they're interested when load goes to 1.0 from midnight to

>"Tell them that if they can make a nice client that doesn't run
>processor too hard that we'd be happy to help."
>Note again--he's NOT concerned about the effects of the other
>users on the
>systems (there aren't any). He's concerned about "wearing out
>processors". Like they're going to stop working much more
>quickly if we
>run deschall on them than if they sit idle all day...

I love this thinking. That processor has more activity in the
time it takes you to blink then any moving part could ever take.
Processors are over-designed by orders of magnitude, and can
take just about any abuse that a motherboard can throw at them.

The main complaint I got was that this is a very
resource-intensive client (Hmmm, no disk access or space, four
packets PER HOUR, and 100% CPU utilization niced to 10).

>If someone with impressive bylines or credentials wants to
>write a short
>note explaining why this may not be too great of a concern (!),
>appreciate something I could pass on.

I had trouble over-coming academic politics in this regard.
The ECE department has their own computers and doesn't care. I
don't have any contacts in the CS department, which is the one
that would grab the ENGR machines...aregh.

- ---
Adam Haberlach
Crack DES now!

Version: 2.6.2