Overhead for having multiple users defined

[papadba]

It has become my understanding (gotten from various conversations rather than documented) that whan an XP system has multiple users defined, there is a Lot of Extra Overhead.

If one were to delete all of the but one, the overhead is still there because the multiple definitions service is still running.

Is this true? Is tere a way to regain the performance without re-installing the system?

Suggestions?

 

[goombawaho]

I've never heard of that unless multiple users are actually logged in and you just "switch users". In that case, programs are kept running for the other users. A resource hog. But one user at a time - no worries.
Link

If you're having slowness right now, have you updated to fix the SVCHOST/Windows update CPU high utilization problem. That will make your XP machine feel like it's dragging an anchor.
Link
Link

Last updates fixed the problem for me.



"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Rick998]

If you're using multiple profiles then one thing to consider is pointing the environment variables for temporary files for each profile to a single folder instead.

Although we have now migrated to Windows 7, our multi-user work XP PC's had System and User environment variables pointing to C:\Temp instead of C:\Windows\Temp and C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Temp respectively.

We also use a 'DeleteTempFiles' script (written by Microsoft MVP Michael Harris) to clear this folder at Shutdown, (not Logoff). This saves the needless build-up of temporary files in each individual profile that is one of the causes of the gradual slow-down of Windows builds (as the file system has to keep track of them). The Shutdown script adds very little time to the shutdown process ('cos temporary files never get the chance to accumulate) and this is more than offset by the fact that the machines are kept cleaner. This means that regular disk scans by our AV solution take less time as there are fewer files to chew through.

We use a domain logon script that changes the environment settings in the registry for each new user (because changing the settings for TEMP and TMP in HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Environment didn't work) but it's easy to do manually for each profile:
[ol 1]
[li] Create a folder called TEMP in the root of C:.[/li]
[li] Right-click on My Computer (either on the desktop or in the Start menu).[/li]
[li] Select the Properties option at bottom of the list.[/li]
[li] Select the Advanced tab.[/li]
[li] Select the Environment Variables button.[/li]
[li] Edit the value for TEMP and TMP to C:\Temp in both the upper (User) and lower (System) panes.[/li]
[li] Repeat steps 2-6 for each user.[/li]
[/ol]
This will write changes to the registry and the changes will take place after a reboot.

Let me know if you would like details about creating a REG file that does steps 2-6 automatically (so each user can just double-click on the REG file instead) and/or creating Michael Harris' DeleteTempFiles script.

Hope this helps...

 

[goombawaho]

Temp files aren't the issue here. That's a cleanup issue. The issue is resource utilization by having multiple users logged on and having programs open for each. Your comment was tangential.

Just run CCleaner on each user profile periodically.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Rick998]

Goombawaho,

Apologies in advance for this but there doesn't appear to be a way to 'private message' you... Perhaps I'm being too sensitive but I found your last post quite rude.

With respect, the OP didn't mention having multiple users logged on nor having multiple programs open... just having 'multiple users defined'.

The OP also mentioned 'extra overhead' and asked whether there was a way to regain the performance without re-installing the system... again, nothing to do with having multiple users logged on at the same time. As a result, surely only the OP can decide whether my post was 'tangential'?

I believe my post was pertinent to the OP's issues about performance (and pro-active rather than your suggestion to run CCleaner periodically) but, again, only the OP can decide that.

I appreciate that you are very helpful in multiple forums but - as one forum MVP to another - please try not to knock other contributors' suggestions nor make assumptions.

 

[goombawaho]

You ARE analyzing my comment correctly then. Still tangential though in my opinion. Who has "multiple users defined" but is NOT using them.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[Rick998]

Hi Goombawaho,

No 'analysis' needed... your 'comment' was very clear... hence my (perhaps undeserved) umbrage. Luckily we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Peace be with you...

 

[Rick998]

Hi Goombawaho,

Sorry... I meant to add (why isn't there a way of editing posts?... or is there, but I don't know about it?) that I hope you don't mind if I don't continue discussion of an obvious difference of opinion between ourselves. It's detracting from the OP's concerns (but, hey, that's just my opinion ).

 

[goombawaho]

OP is long gone. A classic POST 'N RUN.

"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[papadba]

OP is long gone. A classic POST 'N RUN.

Nah, had to take a break so people with knies and other implements could carve on me . . . Also, my issue in the Win7 part of the forum was taking more time as that machine was down.

Who has "multiple users defined" but is NOT using them.

This box does. It was configured by someone who isn't really a qualified user, let alone an admin. He decided that he'd make a different user id for each person who might use it. Kinda nonsense as everyone used the same id. . .

I appreciate the lively discussion, but i had no intention of starting some kind of skirmish . . .

Again, thanks all!

 

[strongm]

The trouble is that the idea that numerous temp files slows Windows down is pretty much an urban legend, born in the days of FAT. The B+tree structure of NTFS makes it extremely efficient at locating a file in a folder, no matter how many of them there are. We might be talking of in the range of 100,000 before we might see any adverse affect. Of course one performance issue that multiple temporary files might cause is fragmentation, although again NTFS is more resilient to the affects of fragmentation than FAT was (or that the defragmentation tool market would have you believe) - but simply deleting temp files on XP won't magically cause defragmentation to occur.

The performance hit you might see from temp files on NTFS is when they cause a low disk space condition (and is why deleting temp files is more often listed under 'freeing up disk space' than under 'increase performance' on various utilities such as TuneUp)

 

[goombawaho]

This box does.

So, my bad (you have multiple user but aren't using them!!!) AND.......... this is not an issue at all then having the multiple users. Your performance problem lies elsewhere for sure. So let's move on to other troubleshooting if you're interested because neither users nor temp files is the source.

Windows Update CPU hog issue biting you?
Link


"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.

 

[papadba]

So let's move on to other troubleshooting if you're interested because neither users nor temp files is the source.

I'm willing. Yup, i'm interested. For the next few days, I'm mostly unavailable. Possibly by Thursdayand surely by the weekend . . .

So, my bad (you have multiple user but aren't using them!!!)

Well, this pc does, but I've inherited it rather than installed/supported it. . .
As an old boss once said, "Lord, save me from well-wishing do-gooders".

have you updated to fix the SVCHOST/Windows update CPU high utilization problem.

Not that I know of . . . Is this a good next step? Ccleaner? Do you have a list of processes that are worthless and should be stopped/removed?

 

[Rick998]

Hi Strongm,

You're right... in theory.

One problem with (OS-based, e.g. NTFS) Balanced Tree data structures is that they depend on the amount of available (free) RAM in order for (NTFS-based) filing systems to be efficient. (Citations available, if required)

I see devices on a regular basis (especially netbooks) where I KNOW (after many years experience [or just gut-feeling?]) that the (NTFS-based) OS needs 2Gb of RAM to operate efficiently... yet the manufacturer has only supplied 1Gb of RAM. Time and time again, these devices are MUCH faster in operation (bootup and in use) with additional RAM.

The difficulty with this particular post is that the OP didn't include these details... nor was he asked (hence why I offered only a suggestion for the OP to consider).

In my opinion the OP's question - "Is tere (sic) a way to regain the performance without re-installing the system?" - has not been answered comprehensively... (which I think is the reason why we contribute?)

 

[goombawaho]

So, it's time to start fresh. Brand/Model of machine, memory installed.

"Yes" to make sure you have latest windows updates to fix CPU hog problem.
Go to START RUN and type wuauclt.exe /detectnow and windows will detect new updates and offer to install. Let them install and then reboot. REPEAT just to be sure there are no more.

Yes - run CCleaner and clean out temp files then run registry cleaner (saving before each FIX). Repeat until no more errors.

Yes - run DDS Link and post results so we can see what is running on your computer. I guess check it for anything personal or "embarrassing" first, like porn tube viewer. Semi-joking.


"Living tomorrow is everyone's sorrow.
Modern man's daydreams have turned into nightmares.