Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Frankly I'd rather not waste the time on it at this point.  You
> solved my original problem Bob!  Thank again.  That was the
> important takeaway here.  Now we're into minutia (which can be fun
> but I'm spending way too much time on debian-user email the last few
> days)

Glad to have been able to help with your original problem!  And I
agree, I am spending way too much time here too.  Need to get other
work done. :-)

> Ahh, something else I just realized.  Feel free to slap me if you like. :)

I missed that too.

> Given this is a production mx mail and web server, it's very likely that 
> daemons
> awoke and ate some CPU without causing a highlight change in top.  Since I was
> intensely watching the convert processes, I may not have noticed, or simply
> ignored them.  That's a better explanation for the less than 100% CPU per
> convert process than anything else, and far more likely.  smtpd, imapd,
> lighttpdd, etc are frequently firing and eating little bits of CPU.  This is a
> personal server so the traffic is small, but nonetheless daemons are firing
> regularly.  Postfix alone fires 3 or 4 daemons when mail arrives.  None of 
> these
> eat much CPU time, but they all add up.

That makes a lot of sense to me.  And also when cpu time divides by
1/N where N is the number of processes then if you have more convert
processes running then effectively that task will get more total time
than will the other tasks.  A little bit more here and a little bit
less there on the other tasks running.  If you had two converts
running and one mail task then the mail task would get 1/3rd and the
two converts would get 2/3rds.  As opposed to one convert and one mail
task with 1/2 and 1/2.

> And context switching on a 550 MHz CPU with only 128K L2 cache is
> going to be expensive when two compute intensive tasks are running.

I commend you on keeping that machine running.  My main mail and web
server was, until the motherboard died very recently, a 400 MHz P2.  I
was sad to see it go since it had been such a good performer for so
many years.

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to