topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • October 19, 2019, 11:55 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 13 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

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - shmate [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
1

I noted this bug more than 4 years ago.   :(
Is there a hope for a fix ?

Thanks  



2
ProcessTamer / Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« on: October 29, 2011, 07:44 PM »

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

Thanks 


3
Hello mouser & Kruskal

He used ProcessTamer to force Notepad to Below Normal
No that wasn't the case. I didn't use PT to force any priority.
I used other utility (Process Explorer) to change the notepad priority to Below Normal.
The bug explained in this thread is not related to the FORCE rules of PT.

As explained PT misbehave processes with the "below normal" , "above normal" and "real time" priorities. in that mean it doesn't restore them to their previous original priority But instead PT increased the priority to "Normal" and after a while to "high" priority continuously.
My first post demonstrate it visually.

This bug was exposed more than three years ago (on Feb 2007). I hope it will finally be fixed (it's about time .....  am i wrong?)

Thanks

4
Any news here ?

.

5

Reminder:
This bug is very annoying  :(

.

6

I hope you will find time for this bug.

.


7
I hope this will be included the coming update

8
Any news to this bug ?

9
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

10
.

THanks for reminding me -- i've just moved and so lost a couple weeks of time.. It's on my todo list.

I'll be working on this for the update coming this month.

Sorry, i forgot about it, i will put it back on top of my todo list.




Hi Mouser,

Is there any news ?
I am long waiting for a bug-fix .  (since February 2007 till 2008)

Thank you
Shmate


.

11
ProcessTamer / Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« on: November 24, 2007, 09:33 PM »
Hi to all

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

Shmate

12
I'll be working on this for the update coming this month.

Hi Mouser,

Is there any news ?
I am long waiting for a bug-fix .  (since February actually :( )

Thank you
Shmate


.

13
ProcessTamer / Re: Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« on: August 01, 2007, 06:57 PM »
Hi

:feedback:
Any feedback or corrections are welcome  !
                                                               


Thanks
 :Thmbsup:

.

14
ProcessTamer / Optimization Suggestion: Adjusted Priority_Range
« on: April 17, 2007, 07:01 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)

.

15
.

Wonderful news !   :Thmbsup:



Some suggestions:


1] Reminder for this issue: https://www.donation...dex.php?topic=7589.0


2] Adjusted priority_rangehttps://www.donation...dex.php?topic=8154.0


3] Separating the time intervals triggers:
    One time trigger for entering the lowering phase and another one for exiting. (the same as the
    CPU usage triggers)
    This will allow quicker entering the taming phase and exiting only after a proper time period.


4] The ability to adjust the triggers per process.
    The reason is quite obvious - every process have its one normal CPU usage range.
    A too high CPU consumption level for the browser may be a normal level for the media_player.
   


If the ideas are not clear enough , I would be glad to make additional explanations.


Thanks   8)




16
My best congratulations !!   :beerchug:
 
Shmate

17

Hello, 

Is there any progress ?

I am here, if help would be needed  :)

Shmate

18

Thank you Mouser for the quick answer   8)

I would be glad to help.

Shmate

19
Hi!

I'm trying this nice unique utility, but unfortunately it may have a problematic behavior:

PT misbehave processes with the "below normal" , "above normal" and "real time" priorities.

Example:
I started Notepad.exe with "below normal" priority.
I opened a big heavy file that demands high CPU usage.


Notepad started with 'below normal' priority.png


This will trigger PT to Decrease the process priority to "low" priority.


Notepad decreased to 'low' priority.png


After Notepad.exe succeed to open the big file it stopped demands high CPU usage.
Hence PT should restore the process to its previous original priority (which is "below normal").
But instead PT increased the priority to "Normal" and after a while to "high"


Notepad increased to 'high' priority.png


In addition, PT continues to increase the priority unstoppably!


Notepad is unstoppably increased.png


I attached my Configuration (although to my understanding this misbehavior is not caused by the PT Configuration)

Configuration.png


 
Thank you,
Shmate



Pages: [1]