Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 07/27/2009 02:26 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
You see a bunch of NFS-related things in a D state and you wonder why
it's slow?
Yes. Mostly because the machine accessing the NFS mounts has been
re-booted a couple of times.
If you have processes in an I/O wait (a.k.a.
On 07/28/2009 02:00 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
So, I guess my question is what's broken with NFS between my F11 laptop
and the F10 server
I could see where ls c: might be interpreted by the system as trying
to find an NFS machine called c. An NFS mount command is:
mount -t nfs
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 07/25/2009 09:58 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Wwll two things, one positive and one negative. The r column tells us
there are not many processes waiting for run time which we normally
associate with a low load average, However your number of interrupts per
second (in)
On 07/27/2009 12:04 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
Could it be my ivtv0 (PVR-350) board? Its not supposed to be doing
anything at the moment! There's nothing plugged into it, and its not
configured under MythTV right now (cable went all digital)
I'll try removing the
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 07/27/2009 12:04 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
Could it be my ivtv0 (PVR-350) board? Its not supposed to be doing
anything at the moment! There's nothing plugged into it, and its not
configured under MythTV right now (cable went all
On 07/27/2009 02:26 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
You see a bunch of NFS-related things in a D state and you wonder why
it's slow?
Yes. Mostly because the machine accessing the NFS mounts has been
re-booted a couple of times.
If you have processes in an I/O wait (a.k.a. D) state, that'll bog
On 07/25/2009 09:58 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Wwll two things, one positive and one negative. The r column tells us
there are not many processes waiting for run time which we normally
associate with a low load average, However your number of interrupts per
second (in) are rather high. Some kernel
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 22:51 -0400, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
When I was running F8, my server averaged a load ave oof around 4.
Now that I'm running F10, and bittorrent is no longer running, in fact,
not much of anything besides s...@home (BOINC client running
astro_pulse), my load average
On 07/24/2009 10:15 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 22:51 -0400, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
When I was running F8, my server averaged a load ave oof around 4.
Now that I'm running F10, and bittorrent is no longer running, in fact,
not much of anything besides s...@home (BOINC
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kevin J.
Cummingscummi...@kjchome.homeip.net wrote:
astropulse is the s...@home BOINC client that I run (NICEd to 19).
It only uses excess cycles and in the past my load average has never
exceed the 3-5 range, except when I was doing real work on the system
On 07/24/2009 02:04 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
12 is high. is the system responsive? if it is, then this again
points to something that has been nice'd (such as seti), in which case
its not a problem, except for sendmail - which I would then configure
for higher limits.
Mostly responsive. In
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 11:08 -0400, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
On 07/24/2009 10:15 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 22:51 -0400, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
When I was running F8, my server averaged a load ave oof around 4.
Now that I'm running F10, and bittorrent is no longer
Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
When I was running F8, my server averaged a load ave oof around 4.
Now that I'm running F10, and bittorrent is no longer running, in fact,
not much of anything besides s...@home (BOINC client running
astro_pulse), my load average is up around 11 and frequently
On 07/24/2009 04:41 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
Two suggestions:
1. run vmstat 2 30
to see how many context switches are occurring and the wait time for
processes etc. A load time of 11 means there are a large number of
processes waiting for cpu time. I think it is inaccurate to say no cpu
On 07/24/2009 04:52 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
You think 91% of your CPU going to astropulse has something to do with
it? Try turning viewing of threads, I don't see how you would get that
I'll say it again. BOINC is niced to 19. It only runs when there is
nothing else to run. It is not
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Parkergbofs...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Kevin J.
Cummingscummi...@kjchome.homeip.net wrote:
astropulse is the s...@home BOINC client that I run (NICEd to 19).
It only uses excess cycles and in the past my load average has never
On 07/24/2009 02:04 PM, Andrew Parker wrote:
kill it off, wait a few minutes and see if the load average comes down
Kill off boinc and astropulse with kill -9s. After waiting for 10
minutes (or more), the load average dropped to 10.35
--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjch...@rcn.com
When I was running F8, my server averaged a load ave oof around 4.
Now that I'm running F10, and bittorrent is no longer running, in fact,
not much of anything besides s...@home (BOINC client running
astro_pulse), my load average is up around 11 and frequently exceeds 12
(and of course when
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
3234 root 39 19 50292 46m 2072 R 91.7 2.3 3520:10 astropulse_5.06
I'm open to any WAGs right now as to the cause.
FFS, would seti's load not have anything to do with it? :)
--
fedora-list mailing list
On 07/23/2009 11:09 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND
3234 root 39 19 50292 46m 2072 R 91.7 2.3 3520:10 astropulse_5.06
I'm open to any WAGs right now as to the cause.
FFS, would seti's load not have anything to do
20 matches
Mail list logo
