We Keep Coding

C#: How to find the CPU's CURRENT Clock Speed?

Currently working on creating a sorts of "task manager" in c#/wpf. I've searched around but haven't found a solution to my problem.
I am trying to retrieve the CURRENT clock speed of one's CPU (not utilization, base, min/max). I have tried using ManagementObjects, but "CurrentClockSpeed" is always giving a fixed value of 3400, or 3.4GHz, which is the stock max speed of the CPU. I have tried many times and it gives me the same answer, so it isn't just a coincidence i think.
ManagementObject Mo = new ManagementObject("Win32_Processor.DeviceID='CPU0'");
uint sp = (uint)(Mo["CurrentClockSpeed"]);
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
sp = (uint)(Mo["CurrentClockSpeed"]);
Mo.Dispose(); //return and such later in the code
Any suggestions on how to fix this issue (I am not bound to using ManagementObjects, I have OpenHardwareMonitor, and can use other packages if need be) are appreciated.

On the WMI object the MaxClockSpeed property gives you the maximum speed of the core, which should be constant. The CurrentClockSpeed property tells you the current clock speed. This may be leess than the MaxClockSpeed dues to cpu throttling.
I believe you can disable throttling at the BIOS level or via the Windows power management control panel applet, so it's possible that *CurrentClockSpeed** will always be the same as MaxClockSpeed.

I had the same question eight years before you did. WMI does not return the real current clock speed, and this appears to still be the case, at least through Windows 10.
For whatever reason, WMI only returns the base clock speed as the value for both maximum and current clock speed. It's not an issue of CPU support; CPU-Z is able to report the correct clock speed, as does Task Manager. It's a piece of data the OS has at its disposal, but doesn't make readily available. There's probably a way to get the exact value from the CPU using C++, but lots of devs aren't fluent in that language.
This awesome answer worked perfectly for me! I finally got this application working properly, after starting (and abandoning) it in 2010.
(P.S. This doesn't work in Windows 7; it seems the perfmon counter used didn't exist back then.)

When running the code at an Intel CPU with access to MSRs then you may evaluate the current CPU frequency from IA32_MPERF (0xE7) TSC Frequency Clock Counter and
IA32_APERF (0xE8) Actual Performance Clock Counter.
aperf_t1 = read_aperf();
mperf_t1 = read_mperf();
sleep(1);
aperf_t2 = read_aperf();
mperf_t2 = read_mperf();
printf("CPU freq: %f [Hz]\n", ((aperf_t2-aperf_t1) / (double)(mperf_t2-mperf_t1)) * nominal_freq);

High cpu when using PerformanceCounter.NextValue

We have created a monitoring application for our enterprise app that will monitor our applications Performance counters. We monitor a couple system counters (memory, cpu) and 10 or so of our own custom performance counters. We have 7 or 8 exes that we monitor, so we check 80 counters every couple seconds.
Everything works great except when we loop over the counters the cpu takes a hit, 15% or so on my pretty good machine but on other machines we have seen it much higher. We are wanting our monitoring app to run discretely in the background looking for issues, not eating up a significant amount of the cpu.
This can easily be reproduced by this simple c# class. This loads all processes and gets Private Bytes for each. My machine has 150 processes. CallNextValue Takes 1.4 seconds or so and 16% cpu
class test
{
List<PerformanceCounter> m_counters = new List<PerformanceCounter>();
public void Load()
{
var processes = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses();
foreach (var p in processes)
{
var Counter = new PerformanceCounter();
Counter.CategoryName = "Process";
Counter.CounterName = "Private Bytes";
Counter.InstanceName = p.ProcessName;
m_counters.Add(Counter);
}
}
private void CallNextValue()
{
foreach (var c in m_counters)
{
var x = c.NextValue();
}
}
}
Doing this same thing in Perfmon.exe in windows and adding the counter Process - Private Bytes with all processes selected I see virtually NO cpu taken up and it's also graphing all processes.
So how is Perfmon getting the values? Is there a better/different way to get these performance counters in c#?
I've tried using RawValue instead of NextValue and i don't see any difference.
I've played around with Pdh call in c++ (PdhOpenQuery, PdhCollectQueryData, ...). My first tests don't seem like these are any easier on the cpu but i haven't created a good sample yet.

I'm not very familiar with the .NET performance counter API, but I have a guess about the issue.
The Windows kernel doesn't actually have an API to get detailed information about just one process. Instead, it has an API that can be called to "get all the information about all the processes". It's a fairly expensive API call. Every time you do c.NextValue() for one of your counters, the system makes that API call, throws away 99% of the data, and returns the data about the single process you asked about.
PerfMon.exe uses the same PDH APIs, but it uses a wildcard query -- it creates a single query that gets data for all of the processes at once, so it essentially only calls c.NextValue() once every second instead of calling it N times (where N is the number of processes). It gets a huge chunk of data back (data for all of the processes), but it's relatively cheap to scan through that data.
I'm not sure that the .NET performance counter API supports wildcard queries. The PDH API does, and it would be much cheaper to perform one wildcard query than to perform a whole bunch of single-instance queries.

Sorry for a long response, but I've found your question only now. Anyway, if anyone will need additional help, I have a solution:
I've made a little research on my custom process and I've understood that when we have a code snippet like
PerformanceCounter ourPC = new PerformanceCounter("Process", "% Processor time", "processname", true);
ourPC.NextValue();
Then our performance counter's NextValue() will show you the (number of logical cores * task manager cpu load of the process) value which is kind of logical thing, I suppose.
So, your problem may be that you have a slight CPU load in the task manager because it understands that you have a multiple core CPU, although the performance counter counts it by the formula above.
I see a one (kind of crutchy) possible solution for your problem so your code should be rewritten like this:
private void CallNextValue()
{
foreach (var c in m_counters)
{
var x = c.NextValue() / Environment.ProcessorCount;
}
}
Anyway, I do not recommend you to use Environment.ProcessorCount although I've used it: I just didn't want to add too much code to my short snippet.
You can see a good way to find out how much logical cores (yeah, if you have core i7, for example, you'll have to count logical cores, not physical) do you have in a system if you'll follow this link:
How to find the Number of CPU Cores via .NET/C#?
Good luck!

how can I determine memory usage of a giant c# data set

I have a giant data set in a c# windows service that uses about 12GB of ram.
Dictionary<DateTime,List<List<Item>>>
There is a constant stream of new data being added, about 1GB per hour. Old data is occasionally removed. This is a high speed buffer for web pages.
I have a parameter in the config file called "MaxSizeMB". I would like to allow the user to enter, say "11000", and my app will delete some old data every time the app exceeds 11GB of ram usage.
This has proved to be frustratingly difficult.
You would think that you can just call GC.GetTotalMemory(false). This would give you the memory usage of .net managed objects (lets pretent it says 10.8GB). Then you just add a constant 200MB as a safety net for all the other stuff allocated in the app.
This doesn't work. In fact, the more data that is loaded, the bigger the difference between GC.GetTotalMemory and task manager. I even tried to work out a constant multiplier value instead of a constant add value, but I cannot get consistent results. The best i have done so far is count the total number of items in the data structure, multiply by 96, and pretend that number is the ram usage. This is also confusing because the Item object is a 32byte struct. This pretend ram usage is also too unstable. Sometimes the app will delete old data at 11GB, but sometimes it will delete data at 8GB ram usage, because my pretend number calculates a false 11GB.
So i can either use this conservative fake ram calculation, and often not use all the ram I am allowed to use (like 2GB lost), or I can use GC.GetTotalMemory and the customer will freak out that the app goes over the ram setting occasionally.
Is there any way I can use as much ram as possible without going over a limit, as it appears in task manager? I don't care if the math is a multiplier, constant add value, power, whatever. I want to stuff data into a data structure and delete data when I hit the max setting.
Note: i already do some memory shrinking techniques such as using a struct as the Item, list.Capacity = list.Count, and GC.Collect(GC.MaxGeneration). Those seem like a separate issue though.

Use System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter and monitor your current process memory usage and available memory, based on this, your application should decide to delete something or not..

Several problems
Garbage collection
Getting a good measure of memory
What is the maximum
You assume there is a hard maximum.
But an object needs contiguous memory so that is a soft maximum.
As for an accurate size measure you could record the size of each list and keep a running total.
Then when you purge read the size and reduce from that running total.
Why fight .NET memory limitations and physical memory limitations
I would so go with a database on an SSD
If it is read only and you have known classes then you could use like a RavenDB
Reconsider your design
OK so I am not getting very far with managing .NET memory limitation that you are never going to tame.
Still reconsider your design.
If your PK is a DateTime and assume you only need 24 hours put one per dictionary per hour as that is just one object.
At the end of 23 hours new the prior - let the GC collect the whole thing.

The answer is super simple.
var n0 = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess().PrivateMemorySize64;
var n1 = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess().WorkingSet64;
var n2 = System.Diagnostics.Process.GetCurrentProcess().VirtualMemorySize64;
float f0 = ((float)n0)/(1000*1000);
float f1 = ((float)n1)/(1000*1000);
float f2 = ((float)n2)/(1000*1000);
Console.WriteLine("private = " + f0 + " MB");
Console.WriteLine("working = " + f1 + " MB");
Console.WriteLine("virtual = " + f2 + " MB");
results:
private = 931.9096 MB
working = 722.0756 MB
virtual = 1767.146 MB
All this moaning and fussing about task manager and .net object size and the answer is built into .NET in one line of code.
I gave the answer to Sarvesh because he got me started down the right path with PerformanceCounter, but GetCurrentProcess() turned out to be a nice shortcut to simply inspect your own process.

CPU Usage Display

There are a couple of questions here about how to monitor CPU usage, but I cannot get my code to display anything other than 0.
Can someone please take a look and let me know what I'm doing wrong?
PerformanceCounter perform = new PerformanceCounter("Processor", "% Processor Time", "_Total");
public string cpuTime()
{
return perform.NextValue() + "%";
}
public void cpuUtilization()
{
}
public String getCPUUtilization()
{
return cpuTime();
}

A processor only ever does two things. It either executes code, running at full bore. Or it is halted by the operating system when it can't find any work to do, by far the most common case.
So to arrive at a % utilization, you need to find out what it is doing over an interval. One second is the common choice. Utilization is now the amount of time within that second that it was running vs the amount of time it was halted.
The interval is what is missing from your code. After you call your cpuTime() method, you have to wait until you call it again. So enough historical data was gathered. That requires a timer. The shorter you make the interval, the less reliable your measurement gets. Make it too short and you'll only ever get either 0 or 100%. Your current problem.

Testing your code for speed?

I'm a total newbie, but I was writing a little program that worked on strings in C# and I noticed that if I did a few things differently, the code executed significantly faster.
So it had me wondering, how do you go about clocking your code's execution speed? Are there any (free)utilities? Do you go about it the old-fashioned way with a System.Timer and do it yourself?

What you are describing is known as performance profiling. There are many programs you can get to do this such as Jetbrains profiler or Ants profiler, although most will slow down your application whilst in the process of measuring its performance.
To hand-roll your own performance profiling, you can use System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch and a simple Console.WriteLine, like you described.
Also keep in mind that the C# JIT compiler optimizes code depending on the type and frequency it is called, so play around with loops of differing sizes and methods such as recursive calls to get a feel of what works best.

ANTS Profiler from RedGate is a really nice performance profiler. dotTrace Profiler from JetBrains is also great. These tools will allow you to see performance metrics that can be drilled down the each individual line.
Scree shot of ANTS Profiler:
ANTS http://www.red-gate.com/products/ants_profiler/images/app/timeline_calltree3.gif
If you want to ensure that a specific method stays within a specific performance threshold during unit testing, I would use the Stopwatch class to monitor the execution time of a method one ore many times in a loop and calculate the average and then Assert against the result.

Just a reminder - make sure to compile in Relase, not Debug! (I've seen this mistake made by seasoned developers - it's easy to forget).

What are you describing is 'Performance Tuning'. When we talk about performance tuning there are two angle to it. (a) Response time - how long it take to execute a particular request/program. (b) Throughput - How many requests it can execute in a second. When we typically 'optimize' - when we eliminate unnecessary processing both response time as well as throughput improves. However if you have wait events in you code (like Thread.sleep(), I/O wait etc) your response time is affected however throughput is not affected. By adopting parallel processing (spawning multiple threads) we can improve response time but throughput will not be improved. Typically for server side application both response time and throughput are important. For desktop applications (like IDE) throughput is not important only response time is important.
You can measure response time by 'Performance Testing' - you just note down the response time for all key transactions. You can measure the throughput by 'Load Testing' - You need to pump requests continuously from sufficiently large number of threads/clients such that the CPU usage of server machine is 80-90%. When we pump request we need to maintain the ratio between different transactions (called transaction mix) - for eg: in a reservation system there will be 10 booking for every 100 search. there will be one cancellation for every 10 booking etc.
After identifying the transactions require tuning for response time (performance testing) you can identify the hot spots by using a profiler.
You can identify the hot spots for throughput by comparing the response time * fraction of that transaction. Assume in search, booking, cancellation scenario, ratio is 89:10:1.
Response time are 0.1 sec, 10 sec and 15 sec.
load for search - 0.1 * .89 = 0.089
load for booking- 10 * .1 = 1
load for cancell= 15 * .01= 0.15
Here tuning booking will yield maximum impact on throughput.
You can also identify hot spots for throughput by taking thread dumps (in the case of java based applications) repeatedly.

Use a profiler.
Ants (http://www.red-gate.com/Products/ants_profiler/index.htm)
dotTrace (http://www.jetbrains.com/profiler/)
If you need to time one specific method only, the Stopwatch class might be a good choice.

I do the following things:
1) I use ticks (e.g. in VB.Net Now.ticks) for measuring the current time. I subtract the starting ticks from the finished ticks value and divide by TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond to get how many seconds it took.
2) I avoid UI operations (like console.writeline).
3) I run the code over a substantial loop (like 100,000 iterations) to factor out usage / OS variables as best as I can.

You can use the StopWatch class to time methods. Remember the first time is often slow due to code having to be jitted.

There is a native .NET option (Team Edition for Software Developers) that might address some performance analysis needs. From the 2005 .NET IDE menu, select Tools->Performance Tools->Performance Wizard...
[GSS is probably correct that you must have Team Edition]

This is simple example for testing code speed. I hope I helped you
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
const int steps = 10000;
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
ArrayList list1 = new ArrayList();
sw.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < steps; i++) {
list1.Add(i);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("ArrayList:\tMilliseconds = {0},\tTicks = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, sw.ElapsedTicks);
MyList list2 = new MyList();
sw.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < steps; i++) {
list2.Add(i);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("MyList: \tMilliseconds = {0},\tTicks = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, sw.ElapsedTicks);