On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
I think we ought to re-examine the definition of load average. By
load, we mean an actual load on the cpu, and waiting processes aren't
really exerting a cpu load. So, by that reasoning I say
: a more accurate measure of load.
:
:
:Ahh, and since nearly everything is done on this system via NFS, I can
:imagine that several things are waiting for NFS responses.
:
:It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
:like FreeBSD is choking under the load,
At 11:10 PM -0500 2000/4/2, Kevin Day wrote:
It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't. Or am I the
only one that even cares about this? :)
It's also extremely confusing for Linux
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:10:59 -0500 (CDT), Kevin Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't.
Actually, you have it backwards -- it makes it look as if FreeBSD is
*not* choking
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:10:59 -0500 (CDT), Kevin Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't.
Actually, you have it backwards -- it makes it look as if FreeBSD is
*not*
, we're getting:
:
:load averages: 4.16, 4.23, 4.66
:
:Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the
:same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something
:with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average
:is too high
Brad Knowles wrote:
At 11:10 PM -0500 2000/4/2, Kevin Day wrote:
It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look"
like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't. Or am I the
only one that even cares about this? :)
It's also
At 1:11 PM -0500 2000/4/3, Barry Pederson wrote:
Won't this also goof up programs like Exim (an SMTP MTA), that have some
settings available for how to handle messages under various loads
(process now, queue for later, etc)?
If there has been an actual change in how the load
Brad Knowles wrote:
If there has been an actual change in how the load average is
calculated, then any program that changes it's behaviour based on the
load average may have problems. This would certainly include SMTP
MTAs such as sendmail, Exim, etc
I agree. IMO, the load
At 2:56 PM -0400 2000/4/3, Donn Miller wrote:
For example, FreeBSD,
Linux, Solaris, SCO, etc. may all be running the exact same processes,
but will the load avg. always be consistent across those platforms? I
think not.
That's not a
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:56:32PM -0400, Donn Miller wrote:
Brad Knowles wrote:
If there has been an actual change in how the load average is
calculated, then any program that changes it's behaviour based on the
load average may have problems. This would certainly include SMTP
Patrick Mau wrote:
On all Unix-like systems I know, the load average is the average mumber
of processes running during a given time interval. I can't see what use
it may have to count load for _waiting_ processes.
I/O load is not process load, if a process waits for I/O completion it does
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000, Donn Miller wrote:
I think we ought to re-examine the definition of load average. By
load, we mean an actual load on the cpu, and waiting processes aren't
really exerting a cpu load. So, by that reasoning I say waiting
processes don't
Donn Miller wrote:
Patrick Mau wrote:
On all Unix-like systems I know, the load average is the average mumber
of processes running during a given time interval. I can't see what use
it may have to count load for _waiting_ processes.
I/O load is not process load, if a process waits for
getting:
load averages: 4.16, 4.23, 4.66
Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the
same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something
with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average
is too high, which is kinda
a much higher load average for the
:same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something
:with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average
:is too high, which is kinda silly, since 4.0 seems noticably faster in some
:cases.
:
:Any ideas?
:
:Kevin
, 4.23, 4.66
:
:Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the
:same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something
:with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average
:is too high, which is kinda silly, since
I believe the load average was changed quite a while ago to reflect not
only runnable processes but also processes stuck in disk-wait. It's
a more accurate measure of load.
Ahh, and since nearly everything is done on this system via NFS, I can
imagine that several
, we're getting:
:
:load averages: 4.16, 4.23, 4.66
:
:Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the
:same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something
:with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average
:is too high
19 matches
Mail list logo
