Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 02:35:35PM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> Lars, >> >> you are right, and I saw that my guess to use /proc/stat was wrong. top is >> slow in getting the current CPU usage. So basically I wondered if you need >> the CPU usage at all. If you'd switch to "load", you could get it a lot >> faster. >> >> To be honest: I wondered what "HealthCPU" would monitor about the >> CPU's "health" when initially looking into it. I was kind of >> disappointed to see that it simply inspects the CPU usage (A CPU that >> is 100% busy (0% idle) may be quite healthy) ;-) > > "Health" was arguably a bad choice, "Utilization" may have been more > appropriate. > But try to define "cpu health"...
Of course, with 4+-core CPUs, you'd very rarely see all of them at 100% busy. Especially when it only takes one to saturate your i/o bus. Dima -- Dimitri Maziuk Programmer/sysadmin BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
