2.40 idle cpu usage
-
Accessing the web ui can eat up quite a bit of CPU in general because of PHP. Assuming 2.3.x and 2.4.x being having roughly the same CPU usage, a reason why CPU usage may seem higher is if 2.4 is better at idling the CPU. Check your CPU frequency. I have a 3.2ghz CPU, but under most loads, it's around 300mhz because it's mostly idle and it makes PHP seem much higher because CPU load is relative to the current frequency.
-
I'm comparing an old ALIX board on 2.34 vs my new APU2 running 2.40, so that could be true. I'll reload 2.34 on the APU2 and see what happens. thanks!
-
Very good point Harvy66.. Mine is really idle.. but cpu bounces up to 20% on esxi host monitor.. But the cpu is running at 122mhz ;) On a really old AMD Turion II neo.. And that is with web gui open in my browser.
-
I'm not sure how much I can change on a little 'old APU2 board, but it would be interesting to test that theory on an Intel box where you disable certain Speedstep mechanisms in the BIOS and look to see what it says. Any takers?
-
I can safely say that I do not understand the explanation. I had the same issue on 2.4 running at 29% with no extra traffic compare to the 2.3, which was around 2%.
How can I be sure that everything is ok? What is th3 link with the cpu frequency and the cpu utilisation…For extra complexity, I am running this pfsense on a esxi and configure it with 2 CPU.
I imagine also that the cpu frquency can change over time...Conclusion: I am lost here.All clarifications are welcome :D
-
Think of it this way… Pfsense is doing something all the time, even when "idle" all computers do..
If your cpu clock is 1ghz and you see cpu usage at 1% lets call it...
Now your cpu clocks down and is only running at 500mhz.. Your cpu is slower, so that same idle work the cpu was doing going to take more of that slow cpu to do that work.. so say 2% would be seen. But its not that simple of ratio..
So the point is that when a cpu clocks down from its full rate, then doing a specific amount of work would be seen at a different % then when the cpu was clocked at full % to do the same work. You would need to make sure your cpu stays locked at full to compare them.. Which is not good for power usage, etc.
The point being don't be so hung up on what the cpu % says when pfsense isn't doing anything.. What is doing when your using it and needing it to do its thing is more important.
-
It's not that we're pointing fingers and saying anything is necessarily wrong folks, it's all about understanding! I just want to learn.
If the same piece of hardware has idle CPU at 1% on 2.3 but 9% on 2.4, I just want to know why, even if it's a red herring. In my case though, I admittedly used two different pieces of hardware so I wanted clarification that is is a bug/feature/intended.
-
I don't think anyone is pointing fingers or anything is wrong.. I think your question is a very good/valid one.
I just don't have enough indepth understanding of different cpu's etc. etc. To know what would be a normal value for your cpu and clock and if its clocking down, etc. Or what you might have running in the background or what pfsense might be routing/firewalling, etc.
I personally just don't get so hung up if graph on the webgui shows 1% or 20%…. or bouncing between them.. I would prob be a bit concerned if showing high numbers and wasn't even doing anything.. Or if the device was running warm.. Or pulling more power than it should be when idle, etc.
I don't recall the little widget cpu thing ever being all that accurate of indicator, etc. What does your top show you would be more useful info to what is going on. Or even iostat for that matter show you cpu usage. systat another good one... what does that show you?
Have you looked at top after hitting shift +s
Or what about htop... its not a default package but it is available via the pfsense repository... just pkg install htop
What trying to say is there lots of better ways to view what the cpu is doing and what its working on vs that little cpu widget ;)
-
It's not that we're pointing fingers and saying anything is necessarily wrong folks, it's all about understanding! I just want to learn.
My guess on that is that ZFS is needing more horse or cpu power and if there will be something likes encryption
in the game on top of this it might be the answer for me why since version 2.5 AES-NI is a must be too.If the same piece of hardware has idle CPU at 1% on 2.3 but 9% on 2.4, I just want to know why, even if it's a red herring. In my case though, I admittedly used two different pieces of hardware so I wanted clarification that is is a bug/feature/intended.
Version 2.1 > 2.2 it was a huge step, version 2.2 > 2.3 was a greater step and from version 2.3 > 2.4 it was a big step
now we are seeing perhaps something is changing from version 2.4 to 2.5 again and at least the biggest step from
version 2.5 to 3.0 as I am seeing it right. If this will be encounter on "other systems" from other "vendors" no
one cares and no one is asking why. MS Server is here a good example fo that; no one is hoping to get the same
performance on hardware for MS Server 2003/2008 if he installs then MS Server 2012/2016 on it or that he
needs real new hardware based on the drivers. And so many of the users were complaining that they were not
able to use their beloved Alix boards anymore since version 2.3 and since 2.4 any kind of 32Bit Hardware
and since version 2.5 when AES-NI is a must be this will be returning once more again I think.What is with version 2.4 and no ZFS, let it also spiking the CPU so high?
Did you try out PowerD (high adaptive) to get not nailed on one MHz/GHz frequency?
Is perhaps ZFS "only" needing more horse (cpu) power and no one is knowing that exactly?I'm comparing an old ALIX board on 2.34 vs my new APU2 running 2.40, so that could be true. I'll reload 2.34 on the APU2 and see what happens. thanks!
What is with 2.4 without ZFS? Is it then slow as now again? Or is the CPU scaling up to high?
It is not really fair to compare 32Bit hardware and system against 64Bit hardware and OS, for sure
but as I see it right it can also be pointed to a totally other thing we all lost here. The release jump
it self could also be causing some let us say not really wished or wanted effects, because at first
the entire version of 2.4 should be based on the FreeBSD 11.0 version and not it is based on the
FreeBSD version 11.1, could this also causing some things that are not really running well now?
No Plan Survives Contact with the InternetIn real I think only the developers will be able to tell something about the higher scaling cpu.
-
Johnpoz, you just clarify in 30 lines a 3 page article I found via google. Needless to say that I was completely confused after that article.
Thank you. Very much appreciated.
M.