%%jrrs wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
[ getting about an 8 load average, with very little actually running. ]
this might be wholly inapplicable, but i once had a situation similar
to that, where my reported load was much much greater than my perception
of what the system was actually *doing*.
i had enabled the diskd cache whatnot method of squid, rather than
the normal ufs method.
either the squid process itself or one of its child processes was polling
something ( i don't believe it was the physical disk, but i don't fancy
being quoted on that ) once every second or so. the poll was only a blip,
but it was enough to keep the load high.
so, perhaps if those processes were strobing/polling something, it wouldn't
make the system run as busily as the load was telling you?
again, that might not be terribly applicable. ?
It might be quite applicable. One interesting thing is that the load
was *exactly* at 8 when nothing was really going into R state. I wish I
had noted how many of those hung df processes there were. 4 or 8 would
be interesting numbers!
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
