Re: Meaningless load?

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Klinkert
On 11.10.2012, at 10:13, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On 11.10.2012, at 06:02, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> >>> Makes perfect sense to me. Work _is_ stack this high. We don't and >>> can't know whether the mountain is made of popcorn balls or >> boulders. >> >> That's the point. Afaik the D state never

Re: Meaningless load?

2012-10-11 Thread Simon Klinkert
On 10.10.2012, at 18:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 17:44 +0200, Simon Klinkert wrote: >> I'm just wondering if the 'load' is really meaningful in this >> scenario. The machine is the whole time fully responsive and looks >> fine to me but

Meaningless load?

2012-10-10 Thread Simon Klinkert
Hi folks, I have a linux machine (2.6.32-220.7.1.el6.x86_64) with 500 processes 'working' on one nfs4 mountpoint. As I can see with ps and top, only one process is in the 'R' state and really working. The other 499 processes are in the 'D' state and probably waiting for this one process. But