I decided to have another look at the WD Live and noticed something. When ever I view WD Live my cpu goes high and when ever I’m not viewing it it lowers back down. Is anyone else seeing CPU usage this high? The peaks are when I view WD Live and the valleys are when I’m not.
Do you mean when you’re viewing a page with the WD Live flash movie?
I think it has to do with the flashplayer and the update speed.
Yes that’s exactly what I mean. I have my update speed set at 10 seconds. Changing the update speed doesn’t seem to change the CPU usage?
With a couple of IE windows open, email and WDL running I’m seeing 20% usage. If I run it in full screen mode then it’s about 30%.
Julian
I have several Mozilla windows open, 1 IE, Outlook and WD running and i dont go above 25% CPU usage…even when ftp kicks in to upload my files, no higher than 40%
Mine goes to 100% when I open my WDL page as well. Machine is XP Pro 500Mb Ram and AMD 1200 (or something similar).
I just think it sits in the foreground and releases CPU time as soon as you switch to anything else. The page is constantly updating itself after all.
Dont seem to have any probs with other apps.
just for info - viewing WDL on a page seems to result in CPU usage being around the 70% mark on my system.
Hi
Greg, you have a dallas 1 wire station, and weathed.exe wil lbe using more cpu for that weather station type than any other weather station type used with WD (becuase the 1 wire routines are cpu intensive)
people,instead of looking at total cpu use, you should be looking at each applications cpu use.
use task manager to do that and click on processes
if you have just one browser open viewing just WDL, then the application will be iexplore in task manager…and check its cpu use
for me, its only 13% for WDL viewing
The page is constantly updating itself after all.Sort of. WDL is effectively a 'movie' so although the update from your website is only happening at the refresh rate you set in the config file the movie itself is changing at the rate of 12 frames per second. Therefore the cpu usage is not just dependant upon your cpu but also upon your whole system including graphics card, memory etc. You can see this by putting another window in front of a WDL page - you'll see the cpu usage drop.
Julian
yes, actually I was looking at Julian’s WDL in full screen mode when iexplore was at 70%. Viewing in “normal” size, and also Brian’s, the iexplore is using about 35%. So size matter also in this case lol.
yes, size does matter
ask any women
LOL 
strange that - I have always been told its duration and recovery!
and i’ve got a really big chopper
< -------- to the left!
Brian and others,
I’m viewing this from work not on my weather server where WD is running. It’s a bran new 3.4 GHZ with 1 gig of RAM and dual screen 24" monitors. About the fastest machine one can get (I just got it). It’s no big deal for this machine but If I drop back a version or 2 it using much less CPU and I was just curious if I had something set wrong or others were seeing the same thing.
I think the point here is that WDL only hogs the processor when maximised and has the focus. If you switch to another window then the CPU drops to a more acceptable level. I used to run a Climate prediction model. This took 100% of processor time, but released whatever it felt it had to when other apps called for cycles.
Hi
i think % cpu used by applications doesnt necasrily alter too with faster and faster pc’s
unless other devices, like video cards, take over the load
Greg, are you refering to WD or WDL?
but, also, Julian has added more to wdl with each version, and that will increase the cpu use
unfortuanlty macromedia flash movies are cpu intensive…not much you go do about that
try viewing a VWS WXflash site…its uses much more cpu
http://www.ambientweather.com/liveexamples1.html
i think % cpu used by applications doesnt necasrily alter too with faster and faster pc's unless other devices, like video cards, take over the loadExactly. The better the graphics card, the less load on the cpu.
Julian
Brian,
I was referring to WDL. It could be that the 2 24" monitors pull the cpu quite a bit and it’s really not that big of a deal I just wanted to make sure others were seeing it or was it something wrong with my new system.