Re: # of current physical Threads > 4 000 000 0000

Hello,

usually, performance counters are used with Increment() and Decrement()
call, not by setting the counter to its actual value.

So I guess, there were three more decrements than increments here...

Best regards,
Henning Krause

"Gabriel Lozano-Morán" <abuse (AT) frontbridge (DOT) com> wrote

I find it strange that my # of physical threads is set to 4294967293 which
happens to be the maximum value of a 32-bit integer minus 3.

vecozo (AT) online (DOT) nospam> wrote in message
news:8D141D56-BC08-47B1-9B61-77C174388A50 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
hi,

The NET CLR LocksAndThreads\# of current physical Threads performance
counter on all our systems, for all our applications, exceeds 4 billion.
Does
this indicate a problem?

Regards,
Sebastian van Dijk



______________________________
www.VECOZO.nl

usually, performance counters are used with Increment() and Decrement()
call, not by setting the counter to its actual value.

So I guess, there were three more decrements than increments here...

If that's the case, then there's a thread/memory leak. With that many
threads/locks, I suspect the machine is very slow and non - responsive. If
it is fast and very responsive, then the number simply means that the
decrement wasn't called the same number of times as increment or that it is
the wrong performance counter.


Thanks,
Shawn

It seems that it decremented from 0, giving you 0xFFFFFFFF
(4294967295). If it's less than this then the counter got incremented
after the incorrect decrement of 1 from 0.

Shawn B. wrote:

usually, performance counters are used with Increment() and Decrement()
call, not by setting the counter to its actual value.

So I guess, there were three more decrements than increments here...


If that's the case, then there's a thread/memory leak. With that many
threads/locks, I suspect the machine is very slow and non - responsive. If
it is fast and very responsive, then the number simply means that the
decrement wasn't called the same number of times as increment or that it is
the wrong performance counter.


Thanks,
Shawn