I'm using flashgot and download helper, plugins for firefox, to download some vid's (flv's). I've browsed away from the videos and firefox is just at no-javascript gmail, but the cpu is still pegged. top shows:
top - 20:41:18 up 1:37, 6 users, load average: 1.73, 2.12, 2.45 Tasks: 125 total, 1 running, 124 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 15.9%us, 11.3%sy, 70.8%ni, 0.0%id, 1.0%wa, 0.7%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Mem: 480412k total, 444336k used, 36076k free, 6304k buffers Swap: 2396712k total, 52464k used, 2344248k free, 180632k cached PID to kill: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 15509 thufir 39 19 82052 10m 7772 S 15.6 2.2 0:00.47 totem-video- thu 1930 root 20 0 77544 29m 7004 S 4.3 6.3 5:25.59 Xorg 2499 thufir 20 0 62608 16m 11m S 4.0 3.4 0:11.46 gnome- terminal 2421 thufir 20 0 73024 17m 13m S 3.3 3.7 1:15.35 nautilus 2428 thufir 20 0 23136 9156 5200 S 3.0 1.9 0:41.24 imsettings- appl 2547 thufir 20 0 242m 104m 22m S 1.3 22.3 14:07.14 firefox
However, I'm hesitant to kill totem. Is it involved in the download somehow? The downloads are rather large and I'm not so keen to have the CPU pegged for hours on end...
thanks,
Thufir
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 03:44 +0000, Thufir wrote:
I'm hesitant to kill totem. Is it involved in the download somehow?
Totem is a the video player ("movie player" in the Gnome menu). If you're not watching video, then you can kill it.
Your message sounds like a download started in the background (e.g. a page with embedded media), and kept on going, even though *you're* not looking at it.
On Sat, 30 May 2009 18:16:40 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 03:44 +0000, Thufir wrote:
I'm hesitant to kill totem. Is it involved in the download somehow?
Totem is a the video player ("movie player" in the Gnome menu). If you're not watching video, then you can kill it.
Your message sounds like a download started in the background (e.g. a page with embedded media), and kept on going, even though *you're* not looking at it.
It happened again, and I tried to kill totem through "top", but it kept saying "no such process ID", so I fired up the Process Monitor GUI and was unable to kill it from there, too. It appeared to simply re-spawn with a different PID (?). So, I uninstalled it:
======================================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ======================================================================================= Removing: totem i386 2.24.3-3.fc10 installed 5.7 M Removing for dependencies: totem-gstreamer i386 2.24.3-3.fc10 installed 133 k totem-mozplugin i386 2.24.3-3.fc10 installed 487 k totem-nautilus i386 2.24.3-3.fc10 installed 48 k totem-xine i386 2.24.3-3.fc10 installed 87 k
Transaction Summary ======================================================================================= Install 0 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 5 Package(s)
However, I kinda need it, or mplayer, or something. I'll try mplayer to see if it has a similar interaction with wget, download helper and flashgot.
-Thufir
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 06:09 +0000, Thufir wrote:
It happened again, and I tried to kill totem through "top", but it kept saying "no such process ID", so I fired up the Process Monitor GUI and was unable to kill it from there, too. It appeared to simply re-spawn with a different PID (?). So, I uninstalled it
I can imagine that if you have a page trying to load media in the background (e.g. adverts that cycle through playing different media files), it's possible that it could keep on getting called up.
However, I kinda need it, or mplayer, or something. I'll try mplayer to see if it has a similar interaction with wget, download helper and flashgot.
I'd imagine a similar problem. You're fixing the side effect rather than the cause.
I use Flashblock on my browser, so I don't have to put up with all the nonsense on some webpages. I notice that if I disable it, allowing all the content, again, some pages will peg my CPU as they load their crap. If I allow just one thing to load, something I want to look at, generally I'm fine. But, sometimes, even that one thing is enough to bog the system down.
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:41:38 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 06:09 +0000, Thufir wrote:
It happened again, and I tried to kill totem through "top", but it kept saying "no such process ID", so I fired up the Process Monitor GUI and was unable to kill it from there, too. It appeared to simply re-spawn with a different PID (?). So, I uninstalled it
I can imagine that if you have a page trying to load media in the background (e.g. adverts that cycle through playing different media files), it's possible that it could keep on getting called up.
Right, but that couldn't have been it for several reasons. Chiefly, it was totem-something which was hogging the CPU, and secondly I navigated to a simple home page without any of that and had no other open tabs or windows.
However, I kinda need it, or mplayer, or something. I'll try mplayer to see if it has a similar interaction with wget, download helper and flashgot.
I'd imagine a similar problem. You're fixing the side effect rather than the cause.
I'm not so sure of that. After removing totem I installed mplayer, and its various add-ons/etc, and everything's fine. I can download a video with flashgot (cURL seems to work better than wget for some sites) and no real cpu problems with downloads now -- at least so far.
I use Flashblock on my browser, so I don't have to put up with all the nonsense on some webpages. I notice that if I disable it, allowing all the content, again, some pages will peg my CPU as they load their crap. If I allow just one thing to load, something I want to look at, generally I'm fine. But, sometimes, even that one thing is enough to bog the system down.
Yeah, that and ?noScript? seem very useful. The jerks who make those kinds of pages are careful to keep all that intensive processing client side, of course. However, in this case I wonder whether it's not some subtle bug which is only apparent when the right (or wrong) combination of apps and plug-ins are in use simultaneously.
However, I have been seeing some annoying npviewer.bin behavior, but it's spontaneous when loading some pages, I think.
-Thufir
-
Thufir -
Tim