ndtrack Questions Regarding High CPU utilization, the "LowProfile" Registry Entry, OneDrive Scanning and the Windows Search Indexer

[mfeinman]

Hi all ...

Does anyone know whether ndtrack triggers the Windows Search Indexer? I have an end user who saw a CPU spike, and when he checked utilization, he saw both the Flexera Agent and the Indexer running at higher CPU rates. 

The technote "Common causes of high CPU usage by the ndtrack component of FlexNet inventory agent" says that "if no processes with higher priority are running, the ndtrack process will typically be given as much CPU resources as it can consume".  Does ndtrack throttle down if another process with a higher priority starts up while ndtrack is running?

If the entry "LowProfile" is not found in the Registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\WOW6432Node\ManageSoft Corp\ManageSoft\Tracker\CurrentVersion\LowProfile), I presume that the default value of "True" is honored (Ndtrack runs with low priority)?

Last question - does ndtrack scan OneDrive drives by default?

--Mark

[JohnSorensenDK · Accepted solution]

@mfeinman 

ndtrack doesn't directly trigger Windows Search Indexer. I wouldn't expect it to indirectly cause Windows Search Indexer activity either, although that's a little harder to answer.

The throttling is an operating system feature and as such the operating system controls the process (re-)prioritization. And yes, defaults get applied if not specifically set during installation/reconfiguration of the agent.

OneDrive is associated with an individual user, and as such exists in context of a user. Since inventory gathering normally runs in system context not associated with any user, the inventory gathering process would not be able to "see" any OneDrive content. Obviously a user may create OneDrive mapping to existing local folder structures in the local hard drives, but the scanning of these would still happen locally (as in system context the OneDrive mapping wouldn't be "seen").

If I misunderstood your use case(s) then please feel free to elaborate a bit more...

Thanks,

[mfeinman]

Thank you John ... this is what I was looking for!

--Mark