Le mercredi 06 octobre 2010 à 14:37 +0200, Florian Forster a écrit :
> It'd be awesome if you could test my changes and tell me whether the
> plugin now works as expected or if further changes are required. I'll
> merge the branch as soon as you give me the thumbs-up ;)
>
Hi Florian,
I'd be gr
Hi Aurélien,
I just added the changes you sent me to the LPAR plugin, i.e. "pool
busy time" is now calculated from "pool idle time" and not the other way
around.
It'd be awesome if you could test my changes and tell me whether the
plugin now works as expected or if further changes are required. I
Hi Florian,
> > The current implementation uses pool_busy_time (expressed in ns) but
> > experience shows this metric isn't accurate: It shows lower cpu usage
> > for the entire pool than the sum of the participating lpars.
> > Using pool_idle_time (expressed in clock ticks) in contrast is almost
Hi Aurelien,
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:29:49AM +0200, Aurelien Reynaud wrote:
> The current implementation uses pool_busy_time (expressed in ns) but
> experience shows this metric isn't accurate: It shows lower cpu usage
> for the entire pool than the sum of the participating lpars.
> Using pool_
The current implementation uses pool_busy_time (expressed in ns)
but experience shows this metric isn't accurate:
It shows lower cpu usage for the entire pool than the sum of the
participating lpars.
Using pool_idle_time (expressed in clock ticks) in contrast is almost
a perfect match.
This is also
