On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There > isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what > it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your daemons start > blocking because they assume this number means badness, than that is > the problem, not the loadavg in itself. The problem seems to me that the load figure doesn't express what most people seem to expect it to - CPU load. Ralf - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: sendmail fails to deli... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail ... Henning P. Schmiedehausen
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with att... Davide Libenzi
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with att... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail ... Ralf Baechle
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver m... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: sendmail fails to deli... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: sendmail fails to deli... Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: sendmail fails to ... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with... Ralf Baechle
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail ... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail ... Mohammad A. Haque
- (non)importance of loadaverages bert hubert
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachme... David Lang
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with att... Jeff V. Merkey
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with att... Claus Assmann
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail ... Rogier Wolff
- [OFF] Load avarage (Re: sendmail fails ... Kari E. Hurtta
- Wild thangs, was: sendmail fails to deliver mail... David Ford