Website Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • August 31, 2015, 01:50:08 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range  (Read 15403 times)

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« on: April 17, 2007, 07:01:40 PM »
Hi,

I think i have an optimization idea, it could be called Adjusted priority_range per process:
   The current version of PT tames all the process within the same global priority_range namely:
   [ idle   <->   below_normal   <->   normal   <->   above_normal   <->   high ]
   Which is good enough for the most common processes.
   But there are some significant processes that will not work optimally within this global priority_range. every
   one of this processes needs a unique Adjusted range to work better.
   
   For example: processes that running multimedia content like Winamp.exe, Wmp.exe and even Iexplore.exe (when
   running embedded multimedia content like You-Tube).
   Certainly those processes which are CPU voracious occasionally deserved to be tamed and PT should lower their
   priority.
   But lowering them too much to the idle priority will cause interruptions and clippings in the multimedia content (!).
   So they need a unique Adjusted range in which the lowest level is below_normal  and not  idle
   The same principle fits for the boost function: boosting those processes for instance to the high priority will
   freeze the PC. So in the same way some processes need a unique Adjusted range in which the highest level is
   above_normal  or even  normal  and not  high.
   
   In sum if we take the Winamp.exe process for example it's Priority_Range should be:
   [ below_normal   <->   normal   <->   above_normal ]
   Another example- the Priority_Range of my AntiVirus scanner should be:
   [ idle   <->   below_normal   <->   normal ]
   otherwise boosting it too high will freeze the PC   ( I'm using Kaspersky ;-)  )

   Obviously PT should use by default the global priority_range to every new process.
   The user may change it individually to optimize some process.



Addition Edit (summing Hasi suggestions as specified in replies 4, 6) :

1] A functionality to define the initial ("basic") priority of a process - the process's starting priority. (like the functionality of the PRIO application:  http://www.prnwatch.com/prio.html ).

2] A functionality to tune specific triggers (low & high) for each process. (the current global triggers will apply to processes with no specific rule).

3] A functionality to tune also the "default global priority_range" (which applies by default to all other processes which have no specific Priority_Range, as i mentioned above in my initial suggestion ).




If the idea is not clear enough , I would be glad to suggest additional explanations.   

Thanks  8)

.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 05:53:11 PM by shmate »

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2007, 06:57:52 PM »
Hi

:feedback:
Any feedback or corrections are welcome  !
                                                               


Thanks
 :Thmbsup:

.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,933
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2007, 01:53:06 AM »
this is a good idea i think, and i plan to add it to next release, which will be soon after FARR gets released in august. finally. really. i mean it. :)

ElijahBaley

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2007, 07:58:58 AM »
Hi,

I had a similar idea to shmate and am glad to read that I am not alone. But in addition to that I'd like to ask, if it is possible or even suitable to define a priority hierarchy?
I.e.: if I burn a CD/DVD I want NERO to have high priority no matter what other programs are running at the moment, especially if for some reasons those other programs run with high priority also. VLC got also a high priority exception rule, because if I watch h264 encoded videos I certainly want every possible cpu time reserved for this application, but if VLC only runs for background playback of mp3 while NERO is burning those priority setups conflict with each other.
A possible way to cope with this would be to implement a feature which allows the user to define a certain hierarchy; i.e.: NERO>>VLC>>WINWORD>>...

Thanks for "listening"

Anyway, it's a great program...

Hasi

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • gravatar avatar
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2007, 06:08:10 PM »
I would apply shmate here http://www.donationc...54.msg58008#msg58008  (above) . Additionally I would prefer to make the settings of basic priority by myself (for permanent use). And that, because of the problem I write here http://www.donationc...ex.php?topic=10770.0 : If some Program started with normal basic priority (Taskmanager) and, because it has been forground application, priority was changed by PT to high, after a time (after taming) PT changes the priority to "normal". In those cases I would prefer to change the basic priority for example to above normal. As forground Application it would be 'high', as background Application 'above normal'. (And also if PT is not working).
 And then it could be, that one can select between 'cpu usage trigger low' and 'cpu usage trigger high' for each process. (or just divisions of trigger classes).
All could be Approximately like this:

Basic          PT Rule                  Trigger low - high            do not lower
normal        above normal                50       -   70   
high           high                                                           X
low            normal                          30       -  50 

or is that all stupid?

Hasi

tranglos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,079
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2007, 08:18:45 PM »
If some Program started with normal basic priority (Taskmanager)

Not sure if this is relevant or if you're using task manager as a random example here, but on XP taskmgr.exe is always started with High priority, rather than Normal. I guess this is needed so that you can actually use taskmgr to kill a process that might be hogging the CPU, since with priority Normal the task manager might never get around to processing your clicks.

Hasi

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • gravatar avatar
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2007, 06:12:46 AM »
If some Program started with normal basic priority (Taskmanager)

 >:( that should mean: If some program has started with the priority, which can be seen in Windows Task Manager or in PT in window "Processes", divisive "priority" :-[.
If this priority is "normal", PT can force, tam, increase or whatever. 8)   If PT works, the programs priority is high if it is in forground, so far. If PT dont work (see here: http://www.donationc...ex.php?topic=10770.0 ) OR if the program changes in background, its priority is "normal". :o What I suggested is to have the possibility to set the priority basicaly and for permanent use  to - for example - "above normal". :up: After that PT can force, tam, increase or whatever, 8)   - at the end the priority is fixed to "above normal" instead of "normal". :-*
   There are other Programs in the net, which can be used, to change priority settings and fix them, like http://www.shareup.c...viewscr.php?id=32563 . I would use Prio and PT together, but PT does not work together with any other program related to this. If there is another program installed, PT works like here (see big image!) http://www.donationc...707&topic=7589.0 PT continues to increase the priority unstoppably! :-\
 I hope, it is now better declaired?? :tellme: :)


This declairs, what I mean with "Basic" here

Basic          PT Rule                  Trigger low - high            do not lower
normal        above normal                50       -   70                                           Progr a)
high           high                                                           X                            Progr b)
low            normal                          30       -  50                                           Progr c)

The other Idea is, to have the possibility to set triggers for PT not just one time, but sparately for each Program.  :-*
hasi



mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,933
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2007, 12:14:16 AM »
i think i understand what you are saying.. i'm just trying to figure out if it deserves a quick fix/implementation, or whether this should wait for when PT moves to a more generic per-application-rules based thing.

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2007, 09:33:21 PM »
Hi to all

Thank you Hasi for your feedback, I Added some of your ideas to my suggest.

Shmate

Hasi

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • gravatar avatar
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2007, 06:06:29 PM »
Have you heard about wintasks pro? (from uniblue).
There is included some scripting language to enable users to make different settings for process usage. an interesting idea,I think?

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2008, 07:10:59 PM »
Hi mouser,

Does ProcessTamer project is discontinued ?

A year ago I sent bug fixes and useful suggestion but unfortunately until now there is no any progress.

It is very frustrating   :(

shmate

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,933
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2008, 07:16:02 PM »
See here for reason for temporary hibernation of development: http://www.donationc...ex.php?topic=12798.0

Steven Avery

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • gravatar avatar
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2008, 05:58:30 AM »
whether this should wait for when PT moves to a more generic per-application-rules based thing.
Hi Folks,

This leads to my question.  I have an application that does not use a lot of resources (Powermarks) that needs a higher priority to lessen the "wait-state" (memory loading ?, paging ?) when I return to the program.  It seems to be helped when I make it high priority (e.g. with Process Master, which runs by application, while Actual Booster does that on a more global realm and could easily clash with Process Tamer).

So what is your recommendation ?  Perhaps a limited usage of Process Master for the PowerMarks type app, combined with the normal global usage of Process Tamer ?  I just want to be :

a) careful about programs that can compete against each other, perhaps clashing or crashing
b) achieve multiple ends, taming hogs on-the-fly (Process Tamer) and allowing for exceptional situations

Shalom,
Steven Avery


mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,933
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2008, 06:05:44 AM »
Process Tamer is very happy to let you set specific priorities for specific applications -- just go to the process list and set an Explicit Rule for the program to "Force Above Normal" or whatever, and it will be remembered forever after.

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2009, 05:59:02 PM »
I hope this will be included the coming update

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2010, 08:29:25 PM »
Any news here ?

.

shmate

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2007
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2011, 07:44:09 PM »

I wrote this suggestion more than 4 years ago.  :(
Is there a hope of implementation ?

Thanks 


mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,933
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Donate to Member
Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2011, 02:17:35 PM »
Process Tamer is one of those apps that still works well and does what it was designed to do, but has not gotten the major update that it deserves for a long time -- for various reasons.  It's on my to do list and I promise I haven't forgotten about it.