Have you checked your dma settings? hdparm/hwtools?
Ramon Kagan
York University, Computing and Network Services
Unix Team - Intermediate System Administrator
(416)736-2100 #20263
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
I have not failed. I have just
found 10,000 ways that
Jason Pepas said:
the other day I was moving several gigs of files from one ide drive to
another on the same ide chain (the secondary channel is broken) and my
load average went up to around 7 (no, not 0.07). The machine would
become unresponsive for several seconds at a time. This is a
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
To enable it install hdparm and then
run hdparm -d1 /dev/hdx as root
where x is either a,b,c,d
Or just get hwtools it creates a basic init.d script where you put your
hdparm flags
Bijan Soleymani wrote:
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by
Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
To enable it install hdparm and then
run hdparm -d1
what is running on it? have you checked top for processes?
--
Forrest English
http://truffula.net
When we have nothing left to give
There will be no reason for us to live
But when we have nothing left to lose
You will have nothing left to use
-Fugazi
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster
hi ya jordi
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
what apps is running???
top -i
ps axuw
c ya
alvin
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:51:51 -0300 (BRT)
Jordi S. Bunster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a Debian
Box keep its load average always over 6?
Not really. Did you try top to find out which processes are doing
that? Maybe you where running a
hi ay
or you could have a hacker running an irc on your machine
-- if the rest of your lan/machines is fine...
than probably not
c ya
alvin
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Alvin Oga wrote:
hi ya jordi
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
scripts. Perl is the compiled one, right?
what apps is running???
We JUST installed the server. I mean,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
JSB you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
JSB
JSB ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
JSB ( the same code...
JSB
JSB Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
JSB scripts. Perl is the compiled one,
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 11:18:41PM -0300, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
91 processes: 89 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 68.7% user, 31.2% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
Mem: 257856K av, 229104K used, 28752K free, 103600K shrd,
73192K buff
Swap: 128484K av, 0K used,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:18:41 -0300 (BRT)
Jordi S. Bunster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
scripts. Perl
Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
We JUST installed the server. I mean, there's nothing hand
compiled, except for Amavis. But it doesn't eat that much CPU
amavis is VERY cpu intensive i run it on many systems. is there a lot
of mail going through the system? is there a lot of big attachments?
one of my
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:12:16PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
huh? is
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:55:10PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
directly related. Load average is the average number of
on Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 01:27:50AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:55:10PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
You have the notation correct, but load average
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:25:24PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The clarification is given in the O'Reilly citation. Runnable
processes, not waiting on other resources, I/O blocking excepted.
Excellent - thanks!
--
Linux will do for applications what the Internet did for networks.
Dear dUCK,
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
-Original Message-
From: MaD dUCK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:38 AM
To: debian users
Subject: high load average
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname -a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
directly related. Load average is the average number of processes that
On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:37:36PM -0500, MaD dUCK wrote:
the load average displayed by uptime has been very consistently above
2.00 and the output of ps aux has been pretty much the same for the
past two weeks. no hung jobs. no traffic. the server basically *isn't
being used*, especially not
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:51:53PM -0500):
Load average is not an indication of how busy the CPU is. A busy CPU
can *cause* a high load average, but so can other stuff.
good point. so i found two offending processes in state D:
root 24520 0.0 0.9 1652 904 ?
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:37:36PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname -a
Linux albatross 2.2.17 #2 Mon Sep 04 20:49:27 CET 2000 i586 unknown
albatross:~$ uptime
2:56am up 174 days, 5:50, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.05, 2.01
[cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
huh? is that what 2.00 means? the average length of the run queue?
that would explain it
25 matches
Mail list logo
