I just sat through about 5 minutes of 100% CPU usage and a thrashing
hard disk. I ran top and it reported 0% idle CPU, but the list of
processes totaled maybe 20% CPU usage. How can this be?
- Grant
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 14 February 2007, Grant wrote:
> I just sat through about 5 minutes of 100% CPU usage and a thrashing
> hard disk. I ran top and it reported 0% idle CPU, but the list of
> processes totaled maybe 20% CPU usage. How can this be?
>
> - Grant
Most likely you only looked at user cpu % a
Most likely you only looked at user cpu % and neglected to list the
system and niced times as well.
p.s. golden rule: ps lies. top lies. free lies.
Don't believe the readings they give, rather interpret them in context.
sob. it's not the first time I hear this. What should I believe to
really k
On 14 February 2007 18:55, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007, Grant wrote:
> > I just sat through about 5 minutes of 100% CPU usage and a thrashing
> > hard disk. I ran top and it reported 0% idle CPU, but the list of
> > processes totaled maybe 20% CPU usage. How can this be?
On Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007, brullo nulla wrote:
> > Most likely you only looked at user cpu % and neglected to list the
> > system and niced times as well.
> >
> > p.s. golden rule: ps lies. top lies. free lies.
> > Don't believe the readings they give, rather interpret them in context.
>
> sob.
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:25:27 pm brullo nulla wrote:
> > Most likely you only looked at user cpu % and neglected to list the
> > system and niced times as well.
> >
> > p.s. golden rule: ps lies. top lies. free lies.
> > Don't believe the readings they give, rather interpret them in contex
-Original Message-
From: Hemmann, Volker Armin
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:14 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 100% CPU usage with no processes to blame?
On Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007, brullo nulla wrote:
> >
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:31:31 -0500
"Timothy A. Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I cannot trust the tools provided by the OS for finding out whats
> going on-- than what can I trust -- this is intolerable! - if it is
> simply a situation if a non root user not being able to see root
> p
2007. 02. 14, szerda keltezéssel 13.28-kor Jerry McBride ezt írta:
> I tracked my 100% cpu usage to FAMD... Killing it instantly freed the
cpu...
Change to gamin.
The same function in much better.
I did it about a year ago. (Or less, I don't remember).
It solved me some other problems (CD lock dow
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 02:48:18 pm Pongrácz István wrote:
> 2007. 02. 14, szerda keltezéssel 13.28-kor Jerry McBride ezt írta:
> > I tracked my 100% cpu usage to FAMD... Killing it instantly freed the
>
> cpu...
>
> Change to gamin.
> The same function in much better.
> I did it about a year
On Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007, Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 02:48:18 pm Pongrácz István wrote:
> > 2007. 02. 14, szerda keltezéssel 13.28-kor Jerry McBride ezt írta:
> > > I tracked my 100% cpu usage to FAMD... Killing it instantly freed the
> >
> > cpu...
> >
> > Change to
On Wednesday 14 February 2007, brullo nulla wrote:
> > Most likely you only looked at user cpu % and neglected to list the
> > system and niced times as well.
> >
> > p.s. golden rule: ps lies. top lies. free lies.
> > Don't believe the readings they give, rather interpret them in
> > context.
>
>
On Wednesday 14 February 2007, Timothy A. Holmes wrote:
> If I cannot trust the tools provided by the OS for finding out whats
> going on-- than what can I trust -- this is intolerable! - if it is
> simply a situation if a non root user not being able to see root
> processes that is one thing, BUT
On 2/15/07, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 14 February 2007, brullo nulla wrote:
> > Most likely you only looked at user cpu % and neglected to list the
> > system and niced times as well.
> >
> > p.s. golden rule: ps lies. top lies. free lies.
> > Don't believe the reading
Michael Crute ha scritto:
>> You should use ps, top and free of course! Just realize that they lie...
>
> Seeing this thread reminded me of a blog article I saw on Virtual
> Threads a while back...
> http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006/02/understanding-memory-usage-on-linux.html
>
>
> He doe
On Thursday 15 February 2007 22:02, b.n. wrote:
> Michael Crute ha scritto:
> >> You should use ps, top and free of course! Just realize that they lie...
> >
> > Seeing this thread reminded me of a blog article I saw on Virtual
> > Threads a while back...
> > http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006
When we say that top lies, we really mean that it is giving you an
average over a looong period of cpu time, and you should interpret
it as such. It's a trend, not an instant value.
Shouldn't top have provided some kind of info for why the CPU usage
was 100% for 5 minutes straight? If it do
Grant writes:
> Shouldn't top have provided some kind of info for why the CPU usage
> was 100% for 5 minutes straight? If it does display trends, shouldn't
> it have picked up on that one?
I bet it was updatedb. This is what top shows me when it is running:
Cpu(s): 15.6% us, 12.6% sy, 0.3% ni,
On Saturday 17 February 2007, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Shouldn't top have provided some kind of info for why the CPU usage
> > was 100% for 5 minutes straight? If it does display trends,
> > shouldn't it have picked up on that one?
>
> I bet it was updatedb. This is what top shows me when it is ru
19 matches
Mail list logo
