It is usually MBTrading that uses most of the cpu. Here is a curious thing... all it takes to peg cpu usage to 100% sometimes is a flurry of volume, i.e. time and sales activity. This can't be right. But I've spent a fair amount of time talking to people at MBTrading, and they've never had anyone experience this problem. Thanks.
cpu usage w/multiple monitors
- Thread starter alanack
- Start date
It is usually MBTrading that uses most of the cpu. Here is a curious thing... all it takes to peg cpu usage to 100% sometimes is a flurry of volume, i.e. time and sales activity. This can't be right. But I've spent a fair amount of time talking to people at MBTrading, and they've never had anyone experience this problem. Thanks.
Alan - as gnome noted - run the Windows Task Manager and set it to the Processes tab and see which processes are sucking up CPU. That should point you in the direction. I think DTN uses two processes (one as their datafeed concentrator and another for display) - so checkout the CPU being used by each as well as the MB process.
Also, make sure you have the latest drivers - a bug or inefficiency in a driver, especially it's interrupt handler, could slow down your machine - if that's it, hopefully the device maker has already posted an updated driver, so compare your active driver versions with the ones on the vendor websites (start with your video card maker).
If you find a process in the task manager list eating a lot of CPU but you can't identify it, scan your machine for a virus - I eliminated a virus from a friend's machine a couple of weeks ago that just sat in the background and chewed up most of the CPU. He kept complaining about his computer running slow - turned out he infected his machine when he launched a VBS file that he thought was a JPG picture in an email. He didn't have any virus scanning software installed at the time.
Also, make sure you have the latest drivers - a bug or inefficiency in a driver, especially it's interrupt handler, could slow down your machine - if that's it, hopefully the device maker has already posted an updated driver, so compare your active driver versions with the ones on the vendor websites (start with your video card maker).
If you find a process in the task manager list eating a lot of CPU but you can't identify it, scan your machine for a virus - I eliminated a virus from a friend's machine a couple of weeks ago that just sat in the background and chewed up most of the CPU. He kept complaining about his computer running slow - turned out he infected his machine when he launched a VBS file that he thought was a JPG picture in an email. He didn't have any virus scanning software installed at the time.
Gnome... that sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately I don't have a second hard drive. All my drivers are current, I updated an INF file last night for the 845 chipset, changed some things in the bios(at the recommendation of Matrox tech forum person), etc. When I stated above I did a system restore, I meant a complete system recovery, reinstalling XP. This would certainly have removed any viruses, right? Actually this helped, as before the recovery running two moitors was all but impossible. That's the puzzling thing... starting from scratch, but nothing seems to change. As always, thanks.
Alan
Not long ago someone asked about their CPU being consumed. They were running 2 (3?) cards on an 850 chipset.
It's possible that some conflict between your video card and chipset is causing your system to behave this way? Do you have a different video card you can try as a single (swap out of another PC?). Fishing here, too. Just trying to isolate.
As for the "OS restore"... I think that just overwrites files with the originals on the CD. Would help if those files were the source of the problem, but not necessarily if originated elsewhere. (Not 100% on this... perhaps some techie can fill us in??)
That might have been my post, because I thought until last night I had an 850 chipset. It's definitely 845, though. You know, originally I tried to add a second nvidia to the original nvidia that came with the machine(IBM). There were serious compatability issues, and I gave up on that and installed a single agp Matrox G450 Millenium dual head. From the start, this thing has not wanted to run two monitors. I wish I could remember how it handled 6 or 8 charts with the original card, and just one monitor. I don't think I ever really tried to test it at that point, but I don't remember there being any problem. Thanks.
I was just looking over your last post, and your idea is probably the best bet I have of isolating this problem. When I was just running one monitor, I don't think I put up more than two charts at that time, so if there was a problem I wouldn't have noticed it. I could go back and put the original nvidia card in, just run one monitor, and bring up 8 or 10 charts, plus MBTrading, of course. This might tell me something. Thanks again.
Alan
Alan
Gnome: If this is helpful, actually the number of charts definitely contributes. 3 charts is usually ok, 4 or 5 is pushing it, and more than that is out of the question. One more thing... a few weeks ago I tried to add a second G450(PCI), and here is what happened... I could run a half dozen charts on the two AGP driven monitors ok. When I would MOVE a single chart to the PCI driven screen, the cpu usage would slowly ramp up and stay pegged at 100% indefinitely, eventually paralyzing everything. It just gets curiouser and curiouser. Listen, this is my problem, you've been great to interrupt your trading day to help, but if you're out of ideas, that's cool. I can't thank you enough.
Alan
Naw, man... just dragging through this slop day like everyone else.
Sounds like some sort of conflict with chipset and the PCI card. Maybe you can take those symptions to card mfr and they can help. The chipset is supposed to control how your PCI bus works. Something's wrong in that interraction. In the meantime, can you get buy with all your charts on AGP and use the PCI for other stuff... data?
Did you try to overwrite your chipset driver? May not help, but shouldn't hurt.