On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Ariane van der Steldt <ari...@stack.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:07:33PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Richard Toohey >> <richardtoo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> > On 3/06/2009, at 10:02 PM, BARDOU Pierre wrote: >> > >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have performance issues on a OpenBSD 4.4 firewall. >> >> CPU load is OK (always below 50%), but system load is always between 1 and >> >> 1.5, it may go up to 2 sometimes. >> >> >> > [cut] >> > >> > And what is the actual *problem*? >> > >> > What is pf failing to do? >> > >> > Or are you just worried about the numbers? B Search the archives for "high >> > load" ... >> >> just for the record, i have seen a server where its typical load >> floats around 0.10 or so, but then something will happen and the >> plateau will get bumped to 1.10 and remain there. this was an 4.5 >> system. >> >> I have not identified what "event" caused this. I've seen similar >> issue with a couple of linux boxes at work where the load avg plateau >> will keep rising: it'll hover around ~3, then say ~6 then ~13. i don't >> think the issues are related, but could be caused by similar bugs in >> kernel. >> >> All systems continue to be responsive and it only seems that the >> reported load avg value is just bumped by a base value. It is >> definitely odd. > > Load on linux and load on BSD are two completely different things. On > linux I recall load being the number of processes running or blocking, > or something based on that.
Did you even read what I wrote? If so, did you understand what I said? Because I fail to see how the "information" you provide or your criticism of my post is at all relevant to my post. > On BSD, load is the number of processes which have (wanted to) run at > least once in the most recent 5-second window, with a degradation over > time. So, if you have a process that wakes up every 5 seconds and prints > the time on your console, you have a load average of 1. Load is not the > number of cpu cycles used. Oh, really? A process running every 5 seconds and printing will cause a load average of 1? Did you even try this yourself before sending your email? Thu Jun 4 08:29:53 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:29AM up 12:36, 2 users, load averages: 0.27, 0.40, 0.37 Thu Jun 4 08:29:58 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:30AM up 12:36, 2 users, load averages: 0.25, 0.39, 0.37 Thu Jun 4 08:30:03 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:30AM up 12:37, 2 users, load averages: 0.23, 0.39, 0.37 ... Thu Jun 4 08:31:54 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:31AM up 12:38, 2 users, load averages: 0.25, 0.33, 0.35 Thu Jun 4 08:31:59 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:32AM up 12:38, 2 users, load averages: 0.31, 0.35, 0.35 Thu Jun 4 08:32:04 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:32AM up 12:39, 2 users, load averages: 0.36, 0.36, 0.35 Thu Jun 4 08:32:09 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime ... Thu Jun 4 08:36:11 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:36AM up 12:43, 2 users, load averages: 0.48, 0.61, 0.48 Thu Jun 4 08:36:16 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:36AM up 12:43, 2 users, load averages: 0.60, 0.63, 0.49 Thu Jun 4 08:36:21 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:36AM up 12:43, 2 users, load averages: 0.55, 0.62, 0.48 ... 8:37AM up 12:44, 2 users, load averages: 0.33, 0.54, 0.46 Thu Jun 4 08:37:31 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:37AM up 12:44, 2 users, load averages: 0.31, 0.53, 0.46 Thu Jun 4 08:37:36 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:37AM up 12:44, 2 users, load averages: 0.28, 0.52, 0.46 Thu Jun 4 08:37:41 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime ... Thu Jun 4 08:39:16 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:39AM up 12:46, 2 users, load averages: 0.22, 0.45, 0.43 Thu Jun 4 08:39:22 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:39AM up 12:46, 2 users, load averages: 0.20, 0.44, 0.43 Thu Jun 4 08:39:27 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:39AM up 12:46, 2 users, load averages: 0.19, 0.44, 0.43 ... Thu Jun 4 08:40:12 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:40AM up 12:47, 2 users, load averages: 0.19, 0.40, 0.41 Thu Jun 4 08:40:17 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:40AM up 12:47, 2 users, load averages: 0.17, 0.40, 0.41 Thu Jun 4 08:40:22 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:40AM up 12:47, 2 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.39, 0.41 ... Thu Jun 4 08:41:02 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:41AM up 12:48, 2 users, load averages: 0.13, 0.35, 0.39 Thu Jun 4 08:41:07 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:41AM up 12:48, 2 users, load averages: 0.12, 0.35, 0.39 ... Thu Jun 4 08:42:57 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:43AM up 12:49, 2 users, load averages: 0.15, 0.30, 0.37 Thu Jun 4 08:43:02 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:43AM up 12:50, 2 users, load averages: 0.14, 0.30, 0.36 Thu Jun 4 08:43:08 PDT 2009 going to sleep 5 and run uptime 8:43AM up 12:50, 2 users, load averages: 0.12, 0.29, 0.36 and that loop is generated with at least two processes every 5 seconds. The up and down you see is when my screen-saver kicked in, and I'm doing other things on this puny 5+ year old box. --patrick > A high load is just that: high. It means you have a lot of processes > that sometimes run. High load does not mean your performance is going > down or whatever: I ran a test today which generated a load of 200, but > only used 10% of the cpu and was very responsive. > > You can't compare load on linux with load on bsd, I'd really appreciate > if people stopped comparing apples and oranges. :P > > If you are interested in the internals of the system: load is the black > magic that keeps the scheduling fair compared to the number of > processes. > > Ciao, > -- > Ariane
