Martin and myself took our argument off-list over a few virtual beers.
I still owe you the outcome of that.
* CPU time accounting in Linux is *different* with later kernels (from
SLES10 / RHEL5 on)
The older kernels used TOD clock (wall clock based) where the newer
kernels use the CPU timer (virtu
So, Martin, I learned a long time ago, that if the doc says 2+2 is 5, that
don't make it
right. Here is real data, we do understand it, and we do understand how to
account for
the "error", which is why we don't push for a "fix". So using native Linux
tools, this
data would be off by factor of
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Martin Schwidefsky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) The factor of 4-5 is based on what numbers exactly? I doubt that you
> get that discrepancy if you are running a cpu bound linux process that
> uses more than a few percent of cpu. As already pointer out the
> situa
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 17:41 +0100, Rob van der Heij wrote:
> >> a production server). Not sure we've bothered to report the details since
> >> this problem
> >> would not impact our users. So the data still can not be used for serious
> >> performance
> >
> > The last time we talked, your tool u
Sorry Alan, if you are an open source company, or a monopoly, then you don't
mind helping
your competitors. With the growth in installations doing accounting for Linux
applications, this stuff is actually important
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Monday, 12/08/2008 at 10:28 EST, Barton Robinson
<
On Monday, 12/08/2008 at 10:28 EST, Barton Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure we've bothered to report the details since this problem
> would not impact our users.
It would nonetheless be a good service to the community to report the
problem you found, whether it affects your customers
On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 07:25 -0800, Barton Robinson wrote:
> Sorry Christian, but with the latest and greatest, there are many cases where
> Linux and
> TOP now seriously under report utilization (I think by factor of 5 in the
> lab, and by 4 in
> a production server). Not sure we've bothered to r
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Christian Borntraeger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Barton,
>
>> Sorry Christian, but with the latest and greatest, there are many cases
>> where Linux and
>> TOP now seriously under report utilization (I think by factor of 5 in the
>> lab, and by 4 in
>
> Do you ha
Barton,
> Sorry Christian, but with the latest and greatest, there are many cases where
> Linux and
> TOP now seriously under report utilization (I think by factor of 5 in the
> lab, and by 4 in
Do you have a short description of one test case? If there is a real problem,
we should fix it.
> a
Sorry Christian, but with the latest and greatest, there are many cases where
Linux and
TOP now seriously under report utilization (I think by factor of 5 in the lab,
and by 4 in
a production server). Not sure we've bothered to report the details since this
problem
would not impact our users.
Am Montag, 8. Dezember 2008 schrieb Barton Robinson:
> Yes, top lies.
This is no longer true with SLES10+ and RHEL5+. They use the stpt instruction
for accurate accounting.
If you still see wrong numbers with a recent distro, this would be a bug and
should be reported.
> So are you really saying
Barton Robinson wrote:
> Yes, top lies. So are you really saying a single threaded process is
> using more than one
> cpu? Don't need much more proof than that.
>
Barton I don't think TOP shows threads by default, so a multithreaded
process would so up as a single line. In TOP type "H" to show t
On 12/8/08 8:48 AM, "Ayer, Paul W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen notes before that "top lies" but;
Like a rug.
> Looking at a top display sorted by %CPU I see some processes using over
> 200 or 300 % CPU.
> This LPAR has 4 IFL's installed and the Linux has access to all four.
> Can we
Yes, top lies. So are you really saying a single threaded process is using
more than one
cpu? Don't need much more proof than that.
What does your performance monitor say (can you measure Linux in an LPAR with
your
performance monitor)???
Normally the processes would be somewhat balanced ove
: question on top
Good Morning,
I have seen notes before that "top lies" but;
Looking at a top display sorted by %CPU I see some processes using over
200 or 300 % CPU.
This LPAR has 4 IFL's installed and the Linux has access to all four.
Can we use the %cpu below 400 % as an in
Good Morning,
I have seen notes before that "top lies" but;
Looking at a top display sorted by %CPU I see some processes using over
200 or 300 % CPU.
This LPAR has 4 IFL's installed and the Linux has access to all four.
Can we use the %cpu below 400 % as an indicator that we are not using
all f
16 matches
Mail list logo
