From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 30 03:14:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F8316A4CE for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047C943D46 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:14:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gert.cuykens@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so4072rng for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:14:01 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=iTngI5uwFXMslIG8hv1uiQ84sp2MbZ/Yq5jPnzUOxpllPN+sMWOqBvA2rlL+ei3nPRwALlx8XcFllx38DUDUNEDiGuLzq82CFzYtjURbtH+JiVC65ABOFtCV4E2wX8/vMPYQxoaGoUahdTPRUu7E8so0I981FApmwTQ8TRahLdM= Received: by 10.38.72.79 with SMTP id u79mr80801rna; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.74.23 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:13:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:13:59 +0200 From: Gert Cuykens To: Danny Pansters In-Reply-To: <200503300458.28038.danny@ricin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200503300458.28038.danny@ricin.com> cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: x server X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Gert Cuykens List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:14:02 -0000 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:58:27 +0200, Danny Pansters wrote: > On Wednesday 30 March 2005 04:42, Gert Cuykens wrote: > > Why does x server always use a avarage of 1% cpu time while i am doing > > nothing ? Everything els is 0% except x and enlightenment ? > > Probably the load of showing content or waiting for input, and the like. X is > big. It also uses a lot (if possible an awful lot) of memory. Showing > graphics can be a complicated thing which can require the cpu to do some work > now and then (think placement, repainting, frequency locking, and so on and > having to wait for those and catch the signals if they change). > > If I would have my TV viewer running (kmplayer) and do nothing for an extended > period of time I bet it would show a lot more cpu than 1% still. > > Same with websites that use heavy and/or broken javascripts or flash. Can yank > up cpu easily even for common tasks. I have a brand new oven (thats an intel > mobo with a 3.4 GHz processor) and it gets a lot more noisy (fans spinning > faster) when making world (in 35 minutes) or playing a dvd or a low bandwidth > encoded mediastream in (k)mplayer. Anything that makes the cpu really have to > work. > > Besides, the optimal cpu time used for any process is 100% as they all compete > for cpu bandwidth (if the system would be under duress). So basically your > system is doing great and is not overloaded at all. It's gravely underused > one might argue ;-) > What is the difference between a console and a xserver ? My console is always 0% and it has a mouse too just as the xserver showing the same thing ?