Author Topic: CM 2.4.2  (Read 48838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline peereli

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: 1
CM 2.4.2
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »
Hi Shane
I did not understand the last sentence in your change log: "CleanMem and all of its exe's are now terminal services aware" , can you explain please? Thanks.
OS :MS windows XP pro sp3
Processor :AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual core 3800, 2009Mhz.
Mother board :Gygabyte M61 PM-S2
Ram :3GB
Disk space :149.05 GB
Default browser:Pale Moon
Protection :Avast,Sandboxie,Private firewall

PcWinTech.com Forums

CM 2.4.2
« on: June 27, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2012, 11:26:34 PM »
Terminal Server Aware Applications - Create applications that are Terminal Server Aware, giving you full control over your app's behavior when run in a Terminal Server environment. :wink:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/01cfys9z.aspx

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline peereli

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: 1
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2012, 01:07:36 PM »
Thank you Shane. :wink:
OS :MS windows XP pro sp3
Processor :AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual core 3800, 2009Mhz.
Mother board :Gygabyte M61 PM-S2
Ram :3GB
Disk space :149.05 GB
Default browser:Pale Moon
Protection :Avast,Sandboxie,Private firewall

Offline Davey126

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 2
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2012, 06:27:21 AM »
A little off topic but I wanted to pass along my thanks for the changes made in CM 2.4.2. On two machines cleaning the file cache on a regular basis is not beneficial and arguably detrimental. I use the advance monitor to tame the file cache if it becomes unruly but there was never an easy way to accomplish this on demand via the UI. The new menu option fills this bill.

Offline peereli

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: 1
Re: CM 2.4.2 changelog
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2012, 08:12:29 AM »
Hi Shane
One more question regarding 2.4.2 change log: Now that it is optional, in what occasion should it be appropriate to use the manual cache cleaning?
OS :MS windows XP pro sp3
Processor :AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual core 3800, 2009Mhz.
Mother board :Gygabyte M61 PM-S2
Ram :3GB
Disk space :149.05 GB
Default browser:Pale Moon
Protection :Avast,Sandboxie,Private firewall

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2012, 05:40:16 PM »
Quote
A little off topic but I wanted to pass along my thanks for the changes made in CM 2.4.2. On two machines cleaning the file cache on a regular basis is not beneficial and arguably detrimental. I use the advance monitor to tame the file cache if it becomes unruly but there was never an easy way to accomplish this on demand via the UI. The new menu option fills this bill.

Glad you like it :-)

Quote
Hi Shane
One more question regarding 2.4.2 change log: Now that it is optional, in what occasion should it be appropriate to use the manual cache cleaning?

The main reason I ever even had the file cache cleaning in there was from an example on my old xp system. Every time I did a backup of my files the system slowed to a crawl and my hard drive light would be fully lit up. And this was after the backup was done!

I did some digging and found the file cache was huge after the backup. I cleared it with a tool from sysinternals and as soon as the file cache was cleared my hard drive stopped working and the system was back up to speed.

So when it grows very large is a good time to clean it. Every now and then some people on Windows 7 would see a few folders open a tad slower. This was because Windows was putting things back into the cache.

So clearing the file cache is good when your system is slow from large files moves, but wasnt any benifit from having it clear every time cleanmem was run.

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline peereli

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: 1
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2012, 02:25:52 AM »
Thank you for your reply Shane. :artist:
OS :MS windows XP pro sp3
Processor :AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual core 3800, 2009Mhz.
Mother board :Gygabyte M61 PM-S2
Ram :3GB
Disk space :149.05 GB
Default browser:Pale Moon
Protection :Avast,Sandboxie,Private firewall

Offline Willy2

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: 7
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2012, 06:41:53 AM »
A suggestion to improve CM v2.4.2.:

In the Advanced Monitor; Perhaps it's possible to let CM count the total number of times it has cleaned a process since start up or since a rule has been added ? I hope it's not too difficult.  :wink:

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2012, 03:19:54 PM »
I could, but what would be the purpose of it though?

I ask so I can better understand :wink:

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline Willy2

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: 7
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2012, 06:05:45 AM »
When I use IE9 then always two or more IE9 processes are running. The Advanced Monitor (AM) counts the total amount of memory used by ALL IE9 processes. When that total exceeds the user defined limit then the AM cleans ALL IE9 processes. I thought the AM only would clean those individual IE9 processes that exceed the user defined limit.

I came up with this suggestion because Nergal in the CM thread on the Piriform board was wondering whether or not the AM was triggered to clean Outlook 2010 on his PC.
http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=28918&view=findpost&p=216809

When one or more rules were triggered the text e.g. "Done (1 cleaned)" is displayed. But when that process the next time isn't cleaned/the rule isn't triggered then the text ""N/A"" shows up. It only shows whether or not a rule was triggered the last time, not the total amount of times.

IF you're willing to change this then I would suggest that the AM would simply change the way of counting. I think you shouldn't add an additional counter. And when the counter goes above say 10,000 then simply display "">10,000"". Or perhaps there's another way of indicating/showing that a process in the list has been cleaned at least once since startup. E.g. show the process name in italics or in bold, or something else. Or perhaps a separate column with e.g. the text "X".

Another suggestion for the AM (these are related):
-- change the text "result" in "cleaned" in the header.
-- when a process has been cleaned show the text e.g. ""xxx"" or "yes".
-- when a process hasn't been cleaned just show nothing/spaces or "no".
-- if a process from the list isn't running when the rules were applied, then show the text "N/A"".

You DON'T need to include ALL suggestions above. You can pick and choose which you like. Perhaps you don't like any of these suggestions.  I am not forcing you to do anything you don't like. It's YOUR program !!!! These are mere suggestions.

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2012, 02:03:33 PM »
Quote
When I use IE9 then always two or more IE9 processes are running. The Advanced Monitor (AM) counts the total amount of memory used by ALL IE9 processes. When that total exceeds the user defined limit then the AM cleans ALL IE9 processes. I thought the AM only would clean those individual IE9 processes that exceed the user defined limit.

The program looks at the process name and not pid is why it cleans all the processes with the same name :wink:

To keep track of how many times a process has been cleaned I would need to start keeping a database of sorts to store the data. While I could just have it list the number of times cleaned while the monitor is running. Restart the monitor and the count starts over. In that case it wouldn't be much to add it.

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline Willy2

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: 7
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2012, 05:38:44 AM »
Agree, if you need to add a database then indeed, it would be too much effort for such a small piece of extra info. But the other small suggestions still stand.

About the IE9 story (above):
There were 5 IE9 processes running and each IE9 process occupied less than 100 Mb but put together they did use more than 100 Mb. And that 100 Mb was the user defined limit/rule. So, I thought none of these processes would be curtailed in their memory usage. But Task Manager showed they were all curtailed, since they occupied together more than 100 Mb. I watched Task Manager because I was curious how the AM would tackle this particular situation.

About the Advanced Monitor (AM):
With the AM one can add a rule to change the priority of a process. Don't have all processes have the same priority and what's the benefit of changing the priority of a process ? Where can I see which process has which priority ?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 11:18:04 PM by Willy2 »

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2012, 02:23:37 PM »
Quote
About the IE9 story (above):
There were 5 IE9 processes running and each IE9 process occupied less than 100 Mb but put together they did use more than 100 Mb. And that 100 Mb was the user defined limit/rule. So, I thought none of these processes would be curtailed in their memory usage. But Task Scheduler showed they were all curtailed, since they occupied together more than 100 Mb. I watched Task Scheduler because I was curious how the AM would tackle this particular situation.

The monitor works by looping through the current process list and if the process name matches the one in the list then it cleans it. If one of them triggers the limit then cleanmem on the process name. Thats why you see how many it cleaned. So if you had 4 iexplorer.exe running the monitor would show (4 Cleaned)

Granted I know what your saying. Why clean the other processes if they are not above the memory limit?

My answer? I didnt think about that when I did the code lol. I suppose the fix would be is to grab the PID of the process that is above the memory limit. This way the program will only clean the actual processes that are above the memory limit.

I have to see how much work that will entail since I will have to change the function a bit.

Quote
With the AM one can add a rule to change the priority of a process. Don't have all processes have the same priority and what's the benefit of changing the priority of a process ? Where can I see which process has which priority ?

This was a bigger thing back in the single core cpu days. Windows shares the CPU to all the programs. So things with a higher priority will get the cpu when they need it over lower ones.

So lets say you have a system monitor or something that you want to make sure gets the CPU when it needs it. You set it to a higher priority.

With so many multiple cores in CPU now this isnt needed as much as it use to be. But still go to have if your running say a server that has a lot of CPU hungry programs running and you want to make sure certain ones will always get the CPU they need :wink:

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

Offline Willy2

  • PcWinTech Full Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2010
  • Posts: 277
  • Karma: 7
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2012, 03:07:54 PM »
I just was curious of what was going on. If you don't want to then don't change the code. I am not complaining.

Was (again) fiddling around and came across something else. When I click on the "System up time"" then a roll down menu with three menu items pops up. The top item always remains greyed out. A bug ?? See below.

Offline Shane

  • Top Geek, err uh Dog.
  • PcWinTech Administrator
  • PcWinTech Guru
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 16,846
  • Location: USA
  • Karma: 523
  • "Knowledge should be shared not hidden."
Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 03:11:22 PM »
No, just way way to have a label in the menu :-)

Shane
(My weekends belong to my wife and kids, I will try my best to answer all posts daily during the work week)

(About Shane)
Site Owner, Top Admin, Lead Programmer, Wife & 5 kids, Needs a lot more coffee.

When people ask "Why fix what isn't broken?" I reply "To make it better."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile"
Honor & Respect is all that matters.

Owner & Programmer of: www.pcwintech.com & www.tweaking.com

PcWinTech.com Forums

Re: CM 2.4.2
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 03:11:22 PM »