On 2011-06-01 15.53, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote: > On 2 June 2011 01:41, Benny Lofgren <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I agree with what you are saying, and I worded this quite badly, the > frame I was trying to setup was "back in the day" when multi-user meant > something (VAX/PDP) - the load average WAS tied to core utilization - as > you would queue a job, and it would go into the queue and there would be > lots of stuff in the queue and the load average would bumo, because > there wasn't much core to go around.
Not wanting to turn this into a pissing contest, I still have to say that you are fundamentally wrong about this. I'm sorry, but what you are saying simply is not correct. I've worked in-depth on just about every unixlike architecture there is since I started out in this business back in 1983, and on every single one (that employed it at all) the load average concept has worked similarly to how I described it in my previous mail. (Not always EXACTLY alike, but the general principle have always been the same.) The reason I'm so adamant about this is that the interpretation of the load average metric truly is one of the longest-standing misconceptions about the finer points of unix system administration there is, and if this discussion thread can set just one individual straight about it then it is worth the extra mail bandwidth. :-) One only needs to look at all of the very confident, yet dead-wrong, answers to the OP:s question in this thread to realize that it is indeed a confusing subject. And the importance of getting it straightened out cannot be overstated. I've long ago lost count of the number of times I've been called in to "fix" a problem with high system loads only to find that the only metric used to determine that is... yes, the load average. I wonder how much money have been wasted over the years trying to throw hardware on what might not even have been a problem in the first place... Regards, /Benny > That hasn't been the case for a very very long time and once we entered > the age of multi-tasking load become unintuitive. > > Point being it's an indication of something today that isn't at all > intuitive. > > Sorry for muddying the waters even more, my fuck up. > > > > On 31 May 2011 19:10, Joel Carnat <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > >> Le 31 mai 2011 ` 08:10, Tony Abernethy a icrit : > >>> Joel Carnat wrote > >>>> well, compared to my previous box, running NetBSD/xen, the same > services > >>>> and showing about 0.3-0.6 of load ; I thought a load of 1.21 was > quite > >> much. > >>> > >>> Different systems will agree on the spelling of the word load. > >>> That is about as much agreement as you can expect. > >>> Does the 0.3-0.6 really mean 30-60 percent loaded? > >> > >> As far as I understood the counters on my previous nbsd box, 0.3 > meant that > >> the > >> cpu was used at 30% of it's total capacity. Then, looking at the > sys/user > >> counters, > >> I'd see what kind of things the system was doing. > >> > >>> 1.21 tasks seems kinda low for a multi-tasking system. > >> > >> ok :) > > > > -- > internetlabbet.se <http://internetlabbet.se> / work: +46 8 551 > 124 80 / "Words must > Benny Lvfgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, > / fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted." > / email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se > <http://internetlabbet.se> > > -- internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must Benny Lvfgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed, / fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted." / email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
