# Anyone know what causes this?



## Kitshera Aureana (Jan 18, 2009)

My computer used to be fine, but now svchost stays at a constant 50%.  If I watch a movie or do something highly interactive on firefox, firefox may go to 30%.  Same with MSN or anything else I'm doing that requires extra processing.

My computer has no viruses.
My computer has been sprayed down on the inside and it's dust free.
I've tried to close programs that are making it run that high, no luck.
I've closed the svchost and it came back up and ran at 50 again.
I've defragged.
Cleaned up my registry.
Did a dskchk.
My computer still reads that it has 2 gigs of RAM.

Anyone know? Thank you. =)


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 18, 2009)

svchost.exe is the parent system under which other NT services are executed and run.  If you see it staying up there like that, it means that one or more services are churning away constantly. 

What I would do is fire up your services manager (Programs-->Application Tools-->Services, or click on run and type "services.msc" and press enter), then look through the list.  You can find a listing of the default windows XP/2000/Vista services on the Net very easily.  Find the services that are likely not default services and then if need be, manually stop them one at a time to find the one that's cauing the runaway CPU use.


----------



## Nakhi (Jan 18, 2009)

I have the same problem. I just deal with it because it goes away after a while for me, but I will look into that.


----------



## Koda (Jan 18, 2009)

Sysinternals (now Microsoft) Released this kick ass tool for delving into processes running on Windows XP or higher machines. 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

You can use it to investigate why the process is going crazy, such as:
-Trying to do file IO constantly
-Running through memory
-Just programs that need to be killed!

Even just as simple as investigating what program/service is running, and then knowing to shut that one down. Good luck!


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 19, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> svchost.exe is the parent system under which other NT services are executed and run.  If you see it staying up there like that, it means that one or more services are churning away constantly.
> 
> What I would do is fire up your services manager (Programs-->Application Tools-->Services, or click on run and type "services.msc" and press enter), then look through the list.  You can find a listing of the default windows XP/2000/Vista services on the Net very easily.  Find the services that are likely not default services and then if need be, manually stop them one at a time to find the one that's cauing the runaway CPU use.



I love that fix.  It really saved me a lot of headaches on my computer.  I should check out my laptop again and see if something reset itself to make it slow down the way it has *nods*

So TC, are you the ITS for FA now?


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 19, 2009)

Koda said:


> Sysinternals (now Microsoft) Released this kick ass tool for delving into processes running on Windows XP or higher machines.
> 
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
> 
> ...



^ This.  I forgot about the Sysinternals stuff!  Ever since they sold out to Microsoft, I kinda drifted away from using their tools, fearing MS would request they build in "features" to ignore certain Windows behaviours.  But then... I'm also just paranoid and hate Microsoft.



			
				CAThulu said:
			
		

> So TC, are you the ITS for FA now?  :grin:



Good gods... I hope not.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 19, 2009)

I've had this in the past. I *think* it happens when it's looking for a windows update. Try killing the wuauclt.exe process if it's there. Go to the services app like ToeClaws mentioned and try stopping (not disabling) Windows updates and BITS. See if that stops the cpu usage. I may be wrong, if so that's one more thing you can rule out


----------



## mrredfox (Jan 19, 2009)

This is the point you buy a quad core processer then stick your finger up at everyone else.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 19, 2009)

mrredfox said:


> This is the point you buy a quad core processer then stick your finger up at everyone else.



What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 19, 2009)

mrredfox said:


> This is the point you buy a quad core processer then stick your finger up at everyone else.



That's the approach that I find sad - throwing more power at inefficiency and problems.  It's unfortunate that people can buy a new CPU without having to prove they need it first.


----------



## PeppermintRoo (Jan 19, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> That's the approach that I find sad - throwing more power at inefficiency and problems.  It's unfortunate that people can buy a new CPU without having to prove they need it first.


I absolutely agree with this.

Moore's law makes for reckless programming and too much apathy towards the merit of aging hardware.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 19, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> I absolutely agree with this.
> 
> Moore's law makes for reckless programming and too much apathy towards the merit of aging hardware.



Yes, and all the while, they also do their best to convince the masses that they NEED more power.  If a system's just doing general office apps, a 7 year old PC with Puppy Linux will run circles around a modern system with Vista.  Heh... I remember when I took programming in high school, we had all these fancy new 16 and 20MHz 286 boxes but our teacher made us use the old 4.66MHz 8088 XT's, saying "You want your code to actually perform on these, you're going to have to make it really efficient!"


----------



## Kesteh (Jan 20, 2009)

Yep. My P4 is retarded when it comes down to doing simple things. Firefox takes a minute to start...old games suffer from loading lag. Even solitare takes a while to boot Etc. 
It's showing its age and I totally want a Intel 2 duo...

Also...SVChost usually acts up when it's running a process under it, as the program posted above points out. Mine tends to do that with auto-updaters.


----------



## dietrc70 (Jan 20, 2009)

Kesteh said:


> Yep. My P4 is retarded when it comes down to doing simple things. Firefox takes a minute to start...old games suffer from loading lag. Even solitare takes a while to boot Etc.
> It's showing its age and I totally want a Intel 2 duo...
> 
> Also...SVChost usually acts up when it's running a process under it, as the program posted above points out. Mine tends to do that with auto-updaters.


 
A P4 shouldn't be that slow.  A new hard drive and a fresh install might do wonders for your system.  Hard drives have grown much, much faster in the past four years.  The hard drive and memory (512MB minimum for XP nowdays, 1GB is ideal, diminishing returns after that) are the two things I look at when "rejuvenating" an older computer.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 20, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> A P4 shouldn't be that slow.  A new hard drive and a fresh install might do wonders for your system.  Hard drives have grown much, much faster in the past four years.  The hard drive and memory (512MB minimum for XP nowdays, 1GB is ideal, diminishing returns after that) are the two things I look at when "rejuvenating" an older computer.



Totally agreed - the only slow P4's were the first generation Willamette cores, and even with those, you shouldn't encounter delays like that.

Remember, Windows is a HORRIBLE operating system that has absolutely no ability to maintain itself in good working order.  It requires a number of third-party tools like Registry scrubbers, defraggers, optimizers and so on to continue to function reasonably well over time.  If you've not done that sort of clean up and optimization of the system in years, a new install is really your best fix (and quicker than trying to repair the old install).

As Dietrc70 said, get at least 512M of RAM, and get a decent hard drive - they're the two most heavily-utilized things in XP (or any OS for that matter).


----------



## Zero_Point (Jan 20, 2009)

Coincidentally, a new worm is ravaging the internet that uses a svchost exploit...


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 22, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> I've had this in the past. I *think* it happens when it's looking for a windows update.



Most likely.  WUS hooks svchost.exe, but so do a billion different other things that need to communicate via the tcpip stack over the net.

Try opening a cmd window and then run *tasklist /svc* and either scroll through the output or pipe it to a file.

Doing this will expand what each of the svchost.exe processes is running and the PID that you can tie back to the heavy cpu usage instance.

Patchlink (commonly found on corporate pc/laptop images) is a real cpu hog.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 23, 2009)

PeppermintRoo said:


> Moore's law makes for reckless programming and too much apathy towards the merit of aging hardware.



To a point.  But Moore really had know idea what kind of networks were coming down the pipe.  To him, it was all about local bus speeds, interfacing processors to ram and disk.

I'm running GigE to the desktop in all our campus's, 802.11N (54mb/s Aruba) and 1xCDMA/EVDO (3-22mb/s) for wireless and 35mb/s HSPA is coming soon to the RIM/Samsung/LG wireless terminals.

The 10gigE optical stuff in the lab is good for a chuckle.  You can certainly download sql data sets faster than the average 6-8 spindle raid controller can handle; on a fast quad core box.  Moore never envisioned a time when the access layer network would run faster than the back channel SAN or internal SATA.

I've got a an RFP out for trunked 10gigE NAS boxes right now.....when an entire nation is paying you $6 per month to store their digital photos, you need some big stuff.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I'm running GigE to the desktop in all our campus's, 802.11N (54mb/s Aruba) and 1xCDMA/EVDO (3-22mb/s) for wireless and 35mb/s HSPA is coming soon to the RIM/Samsung/LG wireless terminals.



Good gods man!  We (very reluctantly) only deliver 100M to the desktops, and only 10M to RezNet (which I wish I could restrict to 128Kbps).  Give users bandwidth, and they find a way to use it. >_<  Servers though, that's a different story.  Lot of them come in with at least one GigE.  No 10G as of yet though, and with budget cuts, I doubt we'll be seeing it for a while. :/  Oh well, maybe less new hardware will get people more in a clean up and optmizing frame of mind.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 24, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Good gods man!  We (very reluctantly) only deliver 100M to the desktops, and only 10M to RezNet (which I wish I could restrict to 128Kbps).  Give users bandwidth, and they find a way to use it. >_<  Servers though, that's a different story.  Lot of them come in with at least one GigE.  No 10G as of yet though, and with budget cuts, I doubt we'll be seeing it for a while. :/  Oh well, maybe less new hardware will get people more in a clean up and optmizing frame of mind.



Remember, I work in a sureal world.  I'm the nation's ISP, wireless, wireline and satTV and we're also a major reseller of Cisco/Nortel/Juniper gear.  So I'm only paying .50 on the dollar for most hardware and the bandwidth is free (actually, its untarrifed).  Our average floor switch is a 6509 with sup720's, and inline CSS if required for load balancing. 

Plus we have two metrocells on the Mobility campus, so there's enough CDMA coverage for a small city of 2M serving a 8K campus.

We're not optimizing the network, we're making it ubiguitous and pervasive.


----------



## Koda (Jan 24, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> ...
> Try opening a cmd window and then run *tasklist /svc* and either scroll through the output or pipe it to a file.
> 
> Doing this will expand what each of the svchost.exe processes is running and the PID that you can tie back to the heavy cpu usage instance.



Nice! *adds to his list of nifty command-line utilities.*

Now to find one that lists the network share and its local path...
That is, 
SHARE ...  LOCAL PATH
\\thiscomputer\images    C:\users\data\imagesShare

I played around with the net commands and I can get the list of all the shares for a given server, but cant seem to get the list of the paths where the data actually exists.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jan 24, 2009)

Wow Irre - sweet network.  Heh, I like how your "average" floor L3 box is what most people have as the core.  Awesome price too;  The university doesn't get quite as good a discount as that.  And ya, ditto with Koda's comment - nice command tip, I didn't know about that one!


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 25, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Wow Irre - sweet network.  Heh, I like how your "average" floor L3 box is what most people have as the core.



_"You can't handle what we have in the core......"_ :twisted: 

Actually, they are a different group and they lock me out to.  Probably a good thing.  The smaller routers are GSR12000's, heavy on Passports and a lot of other things.



> And ya, ditto with Koda's comment - nice command tip, I didn't know about that one!



Yeah, its a good one, one of my fav's too.


----------

