The reason for 100% CPU usage by SVCHOST on first boot of the day

Calling all MVP and or Microsofties

I have had this 100% cpu usage problem now for roughly 2 months i.e. since
sometime around July or early August 2006 UK time.

I see many people asking for help on this and also some MVP's saying they
have no idea whats causing it because it doesn't happen to them.

WELL I THINK I HAVE A TEST THAT WILL SHOW IT IN ACTION

If you run a manual Windows Update using IExplorer.exe ( I am using IE7 RC1
) but I hope, and doubt this is specific to that version, you will see the
CPU usage problem in action. If you have TaskManager or Sysinternals
ProcessExplorer running before attempting this you can monitor one of your
SVCHOST processes using 90-100% of CPU. This I believe is what is causing the
problem at FIRST boot time.

Process:
1. Start Task Manager or Sysinternals "Process Explorer" or whatever you use
to look at whats going on.
2. Launch IE as an Admin User. (I have IE7 RC1) doubt this is not relevant
to the problem.
3. Run a "Windows Update" from the tools menu.

Observe: wuauclt.exe starts in the SVCHost process you need to watch.
IExplorer gets busy and eventually loads the Welcome screen.
Processor usage goes to 0%

4. Press the "Custom" button and watch CPU Usage.

Observe: wmiprvse.exe start in a different svchost (does not use much cpu
for long)
The original svchost start to burn up 95-100% of the CPU for a
number of minutes.
Mine ran for about 7 mins 13th Sept 2006.
On this day there were 7 High priority updates to download,
Windows = 5, Office = 2.

This is exactly what happened when I started the machine that day i.e. I
could not use the PC for about 7 minutes while something used all the CPU.

I have a AMD Athlon 1.41Ghz with 1.25GB of Ram.
Running XP SP2 all priority updates applied (prior to 13th Sept)

I think this means I have the new update process installed that checks for
Windows and Office update all in one go, but I dont know how to proove that?
I say this because it may be relevant to that update code rather that the old
windoes only update code.

Therefore I think we can assume that the windows update processing is doing
something that is exceptionally CPU hungry that was not that way some month
ago.

Could a real Microsofty from that Development group have a look at this and
see if they agree with my diagnosis.

If they do agree, would it be possible to change the code to make this a
background process rather than what appears to be, to all intence and
purpose, a realtime process, which should make it a little less greedy with
our processors, at least while we are trying to use them. After all the
update are important but not more important than everything else in the
universe.

Regards
Chris Rigg-Milner

Chris wrote:
> Calling all MVP and or Microsofties
>
> I have had this 100% cpu usage problem now for roughly 2 months i.e. since
> sometime around July or early August 2006 UK time.
>
> I see many people asking for help on this and also some MVP's saying they
> have no idea whats causing it because it doesn't happen to them.
>
> WELL I THINK I HAVE A TEST THAT WILL SHOW IT IN ACTION
>
> If you run a manual Windows Update using IExplorer.exe ( I am using IE7 RC1
> ) but I hope, and doubt this is specific to that version, you will see the
> CPU usage problem in action. If you have TaskManager or Sysinternals
> ProcessExplorer running before attempting this you can monitor one of your
> SVCHOST processes using 90-100% of CPU. This I believe is what is causing the
> problem at FIRST boot time.
>
> Process:
> 1. Start Task Manager or Sysinternals "Process Explorer" or whatever you use
> to look at whats going on.
> 2. Launch IE as an Admin User. (I have IE7 RC1) doubt this is not relevant
> to the problem.
> 3. Run a "Windows Update" from the tools menu.
>
> Observe: wuauclt.exe starts in the SVCHost process you need to watch.
> IExplorer gets busy and eventually loads the Welcome screen.
> Processor usage goes to 0%
>
> 4. Press the "Custom" button and watch CPU Usage.
>
> Observe: wmiprvse.exe start in a different svchost (does not use much cpu
> for long)
> The original svchost start to burn up 95-100% of the CPU for a
> number of minutes.
> Mine ran for about 7 mins 13th Sept 2006.
> On this day there were 7 High priority updates to download,
> Windows = 5, Office = 2.
>
> This is exactly what happened when I started the machine that day i.e. I
> could not use the PC for about 7 minutes while something used all the CPU.
>
> I have a AMD Athlon 1.41Ghz with 1.25GB of Ram.
> Running XP SP2 all priority updates applied (prior to 13th Sept)
>
> I think this means I have the new update process installed that checks for
> Windows and Office update all in one go, but I dont know how to proove that?
> I say this because it may be relevant to that update code rather that the old
> windoes only update code.
>
> Therefore I think we can assume that the windows update processing is doing
> something that is exceptionally CPU hungry that was not that way some month
> ago.
>
> Could a real Microsofty from that Development group have a look at this and
> see if they agree with my diagnosis.
>
> If they do agree, would it be possible to change the code to make this a
> background process rather than what appears to be, to all intence and
> purpose, a realtime process, which should make it a little less greedy with
> our processors, at least while we are trying to use them. After all the
> update are important but not more important than everything else in the
> universe.
>
> Regards
> Chris Rigg-Milner
>
>

You want to be doing other things with your computer while WU is
installing updates? Are you daft? Also, try disabling your AV auto scan
before going to WU and see if isn't quicker.

Alias

This is a known ISSUE LOOOONG ago - start reading the threads!



"Chris" <> wrote in message
news:B69A0AF4-46C3-45E6-8893-...
> Calling all MVP and or Microsofties
>
> I have had this 100% cpu usage problem now for roughly 2 months i.e. since
> sometime around July or early August 2006 UK time.
>
> I see many people asking for help on this and also some MVP's saying they
> have no idea whats causing it because it doesn't happen to them.
>
> WELL I THINK I HAVE A TEST THAT WILL SHOW IT IN ACTION
>
> If you run a manual Windows Update using IExplorer.exe ( I am using IE7
> RC1
> ) but I hope, and doubt this is specific to that version, you will see the
> CPU usage problem in action. If you have TaskManager or Sysinternals
> ProcessExplorer running before attempting this you can monitor one of your
> SVCHOST processes using 90-100% of CPU. This I believe is what is causing
> the
> problem at FIRST boot time.
>
> Process:
> 1. Start Task Manager or Sysinternals "Process Explorer" or whatever you
> use
> to look at whats going on.
> 2. Launch IE as an Admin User. (I have IE7 RC1) doubt this is not relevant
> to the problem.
> 3. Run a "Windows Update" from the tools menu.
>
> Observe: wuauclt.exe starts in the SVCHost process you need to watch.
> IExplorer gets busy and eventually loads the Welcome screen.
> Processor usage goes to 0%
>
> 4. Press the "Custom" button and watch CPU Usage.
>
> Observe: wmiprvse.exe start in a different svchost (does not use much cpu
> for long)
> The original svchost start to burn up 95-100% of the CPU for
> a
> number of minutes.
> Mine ran for about 7 mins 13th Sept 2006.
> On this day there were 7 High priority updates to download,
> Windows = 5, Office = 2.
>
> This is exactly what happened when I started the machine that day i.e. I
> could not use the PC for about 7 minutes while something used all the CPU.
>
> I have a AMD Athlon 1.41Ghz with 1.25GB of Ram.
> Running XP SP2 all priority updates applied (prior to 13th Sept)
>
> I think this means I have the new update process installed that checks for
> Windows and Office update all in one go, but I dont know how to proove
> that?
> I say this because it may be relevant to that update code rather that the
> old
> windoes only update code.
>
> Therefore I think we can assume that the windows update processing is
> doing
> something that is exceptionally CPU hungry that was not that way some
> month
> ago.
>
> Could a real Microsofty from that Development group have a look at this
> and
> see if they agree with my diagnosis.
>
> If they do agree, would it be possible to change the code to make this a
> background process rather than what appears to be, to all intence and
> purpose, a realtime process, which should make it a little less greedy
> with
> our processors, at least while we are trying to use them. After all the
> update are important but not more important than everything else in the
> universe.
>
> Regards
> Chris Rigg-Milner
>
>

Dont post for the sake of flapping your fingers!!!!!!

Of course I dont want to do other thing while updates are actually being
installed. But if you read and attempt to understand what was said in my
original post, what I and many many others would like to do is use my PC
while windows update checks for updates every morning (first boot of day) and
invariably finds nothing to do (after some 2/3/4/5/6/7 minutes) of using 95+%
of my processor for what should be a background process.

No regards

I have just spent 3 hours looking at threads on this subject and have yet to
find anything that admits to this being a KNOWN problem.
I do see lots of people complaining about it but nobody, yourself included,
has bothered to actually post a message saying anything like "yes we admit
this is a problem and it will be fixed (whenever)" or "here is a workaround"
or "Woops we screwed-up."

I appreciate the problem of multiple posts on the same subject well after it
has been recognised as a real problem can be annoying, but I believe I made
ever sensible effort to find this thread that "Admits this is a problem".

Please point me to the thread in question.


"Jeff Wells" wrote:

> This is a known ISSUE LOOOONG ago - start reading the threads!
>
>

Chris wrote:
> Dont post for the sake of flapping your fingers!!!!!!

Just trying to help. I'm sorry you can't see the forest for the trees.
>
> Of course I dont want to do other thing while updates are actually being
> installed. But if you read and attempt to understand what was said in my
> original post, what I and many many others would like to do is use my PC
> while windows update checks for updates every morning (first boot of day) and
> invariably finds nothing to do (after some 2/3/4/5/6/7 minutes) of using 95+%
> of my processor for what should be a background process.
>
> No regards
>

So, turn off Auto Updates until you're ready to do the Update Dance.

Alias

Chris wrote:
> I have just spent 3 hours looking at threads on this subject and have yet to
> find anything that admits to this being a KNOWN problem.
> I do see lots of people complaining about it but nobody, yourself included,
> has bothered to actually post a message saying anything like "yes we admit
> this is a problem and it will be fixed (whenever)" or "here is a workaround"
> or "Woops we screwed-up."
>
> I appreciate the problem of multiple posts on the same subject well after it
> has been recognised as a real problem can be annoying, but I believe I made
> ever sensible effort to find this thread that "Admits this is a problem".
>
> Please point me to the thread in question.

You seem to be under the erroneous impression that posts here are read
and replied to by MS staff. The people here are volunteers who offer
their time to try and help people.

Disable Auto Update until you want to do updates. There is no reason to
have it on all the time. Updates come out every second Tuesday so you
know when you should turn them back on every month.

Alias
>
>
> "Jeff Wells" wrote:
>
>> This is a known ISSUE LOOOONG ago - start reading the threads!
>>
>>
>

Ok,

I had worked that out for myself, but at least it is an attempt at a
usefull/helpfull solution/workaround to the problem.

I realise that posters here are not Microsofties but I would hope some MSies
from relevant departments would scan these forums now and again? I also hoped
that if it gained the attention of an MVP, they may have a contact with a
real MS employee, and might pass on the issue for there review.

Also the idea of these threads is to leave a "USEFUL" trail from problem to
solution (hopefully) for others to review against there own problems. To
that end would it not be a good idea to post a thread with a title like
"SVCHOST 100% CPU usage : MS ADMITS ISSUE will be fixed ?sometime" so that
people like myself actually know that it is a KNOWN problem.


PS. As MVP's are not MS Employees how does somebody gain that rating?

Chris wrote:
> Ok,
>
> I had worked that out for myself, but at least it is an attempt at a
> usefull/helpfull solution/workaround to the problem.
>
> I realise that posters here are not Microsofties but I would hope some MSies
> from relevant departments would scan these forums now and again? I also hoped
> that if it gained the attention of an MVP, they may have a contact with a
> real MS employee, and might pass on the issue for there review.
>
> Also the idea of these threads is to leave a "USEFUL" trail from problem to
> solution (hopefully) for others to review against there own problems. To
> that end would it not be a good idea to post a thread with a title like
> "SVCHOST 100% CPU usage : MS ADMITS ISSUE will be fixed ?sometime" so that
> people like myself actually know that it is a KNOWN problem.
>
>
> PS. As MVP's are not MS Employees how does somebody gain that rating?
>
>

I don't know. I have no desire to be an MVP.

Alias

TO MS: It is really terrible slow with the updates last couple of months, Are
you obscuring so much ? that the normal processors are not enough powerfull ?
PLEASE , measure the customer processor power and do less "nothing doing" in
that case, PLEASE !