On 5/28/23 03:09, Christian wrote:
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 27 May 2023 16:30:05 -0700
On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
New day, new tests. Got
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sat, 27 May 2023 16:30:05 -0700
>
> On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
>
> > New day, new tes
On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
New day, new tests. Got a crash again, however with the message "AHCI
controller unavailable".
Figured that is the SATA drives not being plugged in the right order.
Corrected that and a 3:30h stress test went so far without any issues
besides this old bug
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Fri, 26 May 2023 18:22:17 -0700
>
> On 5/26/23 16:08, Christian wrote:
>
> > Good and bad
On 5/26/23 16:08, Christian wrote:
Good and bad things:
I started to test different setups (always with full 12 core stress
test). Boot from USB liveCD (only stress and s-tui installed):
- All disks disconnected, other than M2. Standard BIOS
- All disks disconnected, other than M2. Proper
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 15:04:44 -0700
>
>
> > > > > What stresstest are you using?
>
On 5/21/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 14:22:22 -0700
On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
David Christensen Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
Heat sinks, heat pipes, water blocks, radiators, fans, ducts, etc..
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 14:22:22 -0700
>
> On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
> > David Christensen Sun,
On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
>>> David Christensen Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
Please use inline posting style and proper indentation.
Phew... will be quite hard to read. But here you go.
It is not hard when you delete the
On 5/21/23 06:26, songbird wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
...
Measuring actual power supply output and system usage would involve
building or buying suitable test equipment. The cost would be non-trivial.
...
it depends upon how accurate you want to be and
how much power.
for my
David Christensen wrote:
...
> Measuring actual power supply output and system usage would involve
> building or buying suitable test equipment. The cost would be non-trivial.
...
it depends upon how accurate you want to be and
how much power.
for my system it was a simple matter of
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
>
> On 5/21/23 01:14, Christian wrote:
>
> > >
On 5/21/23 01:14, Christian wrote:
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
On 5/20/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
Hi there,
I am having trouble
unmounted. So would guess this would be a test to see if it is about
power?
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
On 5/20/23 14:46, Christian
On 5/20/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
Hi there,
I am having trouble with a new build system. It works normal and stable
until I put extreme stress on it, e.g. using all 12 cores with stress
tool.
System will suddenly loose network connection and become unresponsive.
Only a reset works. I am not
Hi there,
I am having trouble with a new build system. It works normal and stable
until I put extreme stress on it, e.g. using all 12 cores with stress
tool.
System will suddenly loose network connection and become unresponsive.
Only a reset works. I am not sure what is going on, but it is
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com wrote:
I don't know about the new Raspberry quad core. Does it have the same
limited usb chip as the original?
It does. But because the CPU is more powerful (and you have 4 cores) you
can squeeze about 95MBit/s out of it.
Right now I am dd'ing a 600MB file over NFS
Sven Hartge wrote:
Reco wrote:
Sven Hartge wrote:
Maybe the USB hardware implementation is better in the N900? The one
in the Pi is quite bad and finicky.
I am coming to this discussion late but I had to confirm that the USB
chip in the Raspberry Pi is very limiting. It has a maximum
Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:38:12 +0200 Sven Hartge s...@svenhartge.de wrote:
Maybe the USB hardware implementation is better in the N900? The one
in the Pi is quite bad and finicky.
I happen to have Pi too. Not that I need an NFS server on it, NFS
client is
,
but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
The pi has no on-board ethernet. The ethernet port is attached via USB.
--
Why is it that all
may be able to transfer up to 45MBit/s,
but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
What? Are you serious? I have this Nokia N900 lying behind me
basti black.flederm...@arcor.de wrote:
iotop show me a read speed around 3 MB/s, there is a Class 10 UHS card
(10-15 MB/s read, 9-5 MB/s write I guess).
More than 3MByte/s is not really achievable with a Pi-1, because the CPU
is very weak and the Ethernet-Chip is attached via USB.
Under the
35MBit/s is normal.
The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
Petter
--
I'm ionized
Are you sure?
I'm positive.
pgpb9DSiuayKO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hello,
perhaps thats a bit OT but I can't found a Rasbian or RaspberryPi
related mailinglist.
Per default nfs starts with 8 servers
root@raspberrypi:~# head -n 2 /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server
# Number of servers to start up
RPCNFSDCOUNT=8
So I try to transfer a 3GB file from the raspberry to
The Problem is not the speed of 3 MB/s it's the load of 12 and more.
On 19.06.2015 14:03, Sven Hartge wrote:
basti black.flederm...@arcor.de wrote:
iotop show me a read speed around 3 MB/s, there is a Class 10 UHS card
(10-15 MB/s read, 9-5 MB/s write I guess).
More than 3MByte/s is not
Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
What? Are you serious? I have this Nokia N900 lying behind me which is
connected by IP-via-USB (aka usbnet aka g_ether) and with the order of
magnitude slower ARM CPU it reliably shows 40mbps with no noticeable
load.
Maybe the USB hardware
Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:38:12 +0200 Sven Hartge s...@svenhartge.de wrote:
What I suspect was happening with your NFS server is the multiple
knfsd threads in D-state (i.e. blocked by iowait by slof MMC card)
*plus* this USB Ethernet interrupts. I'd start with
rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
The Problem is not the speed of 3 MB/s it's the load of 12 and more.
The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
What? Are you serious? I have this Nokia N900 lying
Found this thread searching for a solution to my problem (which sounds
similar).
My solution was barrier=0 in /etc/fstab see
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4
Uh, specifically my problem was that loading large mysql files took
forever and would often end with mysql losing the
part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are
actually performing quite well, and are outperforming my squeeze boxes by 2-3
ms. Never the less, the high load is giving us cause for concern and is
stopping us from migrating completely, and we're wondering if anybody else is
seeing
have a load of over 3 and are not staying up during our peak
time, whereas our squeeze boxes have a load of less than 1.
The interesting part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are
actually performing quite well, and are outperforming my squeeze boxes by
2-3 ms. Never the less
Something else I just noticed now that I'm on a screen high enough to show all of /proc/interrupts on one line:Non-maskable interrupts are happening on Wheezy whereas they didn't on Squeeze. Additionally, it seems Non-maskable interrupts and Performance monitoring are the same value all the time.
More troubleshooting steps:
Built and installed latest 3.10 kernel, no change in interrupts
Built and installed latest 2.6.32 kernel, and I am back to Squeeze level
loads and no high timer, rescheduling, non-maskable or performance
interrupts are present.
So, does anybody have any idea what
On 04/07/13 00:30, Will Platnick wrote:
More troubleshooting steps:
Built and installed latest 3.10 kernel, no change in interrupts
Built and installed latest 2.6.32 kernel, and I am back to Squeeze level
loads and no high timer, rescheduling, non-maskable or performance
interrupts are
Same issue here exactly and have noticed this since upgrading to Wheezy. We
have also delayed upgrading the rest of our servers until this gets fixed.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/07/13 00:30, Will Platnick wrote:
More
So since there seems to be a few of us having this issue, are there any
Debian or linux kernel engineers out there who are willing to help? Is this
the best place for that?
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Mckisick mckis...@gmail.com wrote:
Same issue here exactly and have noticed this
of the software, just built on Wheezy instead of Squeeze. My problem is that my Wheezy boxes have a load of over 3 and are not staying up during our peak time, whereas our squeeze boxes have a load of less than 1.The interesting part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are actually performing
Hi Andrei,
How could that KMail can answer from the subject if marked, but I strongly
second Lisi´s notion of putting a legible text into the mail body and using a
fine descriptive and short enough subject for the mail.
Am Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013, 11:15:29 schrieb Andrei Hristow:
Hi, I have
Hi Chaps,
I've upgraded a server running our database connection pool software from etch
on 2.6.18 to lenny on 2.6.26 and I'm now seeing intermittant high load averages.
I don't see anything CPU or IO bound on the machine using top and vmstat, and
I'm absoloutely baffled by it. Normal load
Julien wrote:
Hi,
Since quite a long time now, we observe the same phenomenon on three
web servers we have on two different places. They regularly have
high load peaks, until 20 to 50. These peaks append very regularly
(from once a day to several an hour), and we can't explain why. It
doesn't
Hi,
Since quite a long time now, we observe the same phenomenon on three
web servers we have on two different places. They regularly have
high load peaks, until 20 to 50. These peaks append very regularly
(from once a day to several an hour), and we can't explain why. It
doesn't seem
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341055
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4590
Anyone have a work around? the --round-robin from the above link has
lessened the issue however it is still creating a load ave of over 12.0 !
I tried downgrading to sarge/stable
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:54:37PM +1200, Simon wrote:
[snip]
I have noticed high(ish) load averages (currently 2.08, last week it was
17!!), but there is no processes hogging the CPU, nor are we using any
[snip]
Check the output of ps(1) and look for processes in the 'D' state. Also,
check
Adam Garside wrote:
I have noticed high(ish) load averages (currently 2.08, last week it was
17!!), but there is no processes hogging the CPU, nor are we using any
[snip]
Check the output of ps(1) and look for processes in the 'D' state.
Nothing there. All seems fine.
Also,
check I/O
hallo!
ich hab vor kurzem ein gateway (adsl pptp, iptables) aufgesetzt. mein problem
ist die zu hohe load.
---top--
11:12:49 up 12 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 1.65, 1.45, 1.42
29 processes: 24 sleeping, 4 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 75.6% user, 24.4% system, 0.0% nice,
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:19:12 +0200
Alex Handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vom der hardware durfte es jedoch kein problem sein:
256 MB und 1800+ Athlon sind eigentlich überdimensioniert für einen router
und das netz ist auch nicht zu groß, ca. 10 clients.
mir ist auch aufgefallen, dass die
nein hab eine 20 GB platte und es sind nur ca 400 mb drauf
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 09:49, Timo Eckert wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:19:12 +0200
Alex Handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vom der hardware durfte es jedoch kein problem sein:
256 MB und 1800+ Athlon sind eigentlich
Ich hatte das selbe problem schon bei einem anderen rechner,
ich glaube es liegt nicht an der hardware.
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 09:49, Timo Eckert wrote:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:19:12 +0200
Alex Handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vom der hardware durfte es jedoch kein problem sein:
256 MB
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:12:08 +0200
Alex Handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nein hab eine 20 GB platte und es sind nur ca 400 mb drauf
Hast du den syslogd mal restarted?
Sonnige Grüsse,
Timo.
ich hab den syslog jetzt gestoppt und jetzt geht die load leicht runter
load average: 1.04, 1.29, 1.38
nach einem start geht die load wieder hoch ...
vielleicht liegt es am dhcpd der schreibt ziemlich viel in die daemon.log
-- /var/log/daemon.log --
Apr 13 23:47:28 router dhcpd-2.2.x:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:45:59 +0200
Alex Handle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ich hab den syslog jetzt gestoppt und jetzt geht die load leicht runter
load average: 1.04, 1.29, 1.38
Naja, aber immer noch über 1..
was sagt denn 'dmesg'?
Irgendwelche Errors?
Sonnige Grüsse,
Timo.
mir ist auch aufgefallen, dass ppp und pptp 2 x gestartet sind:
router:~# ps aux | grep pptp
root 16556 0.0 0.2 1316 524 ?SApr13 0:04 /usr/sbin/pptp
root 16558 0.0 0.2 1316 552 ?SApr13 0:00 /usr/sbin/pptp
router:~# ps aux | grep ppp
root 348 21.1
hab das in der kern.log gefunden sieht auch nicht gut aus:
-- kern.log --
Apr 12 17:50:40 router kernel: eth1: Oversized Ethernet frame spanned multiple
buffers, entry 0xd length 0 status 0400!
Apr 12 17:50:40 router kernel: eth1: Oversized Ethernet frame cbaa90d0 vs
cbaa90d0.
Apr 12
Hi,
I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
What bothers me is that load average used to stay under 0.16 previously
- nothing has changed. I have already tried to see if there are any
processes blocking
Hi,
I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
This would imply I/O wait for me. What sort of disks does it have?
What bothers me is that load average used to stay under 0.16 previously
- nothing has
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:44, Rus Foster wrote:
Hi,
I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
This would imply I/O wait for me. What sort of disks does it have?
Thats what I thought but this same
the other day I was moving several gigs of files from one ide drive to
another on the same ide chain (the secondary channel is broken) and my load
average went up to around 7 (no, not 0.07). The machine would become
unresponsive for several seconds at a time. This is a uniprocessor machine,
Have you checked your dma settings? hdparm/hwtools?
Ramon Kagan
York University, Computing and Network Services
Unix Team - Intermediate System Administrator
(416)736-2100 #20263
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
I have not failed. I have just
found 10,000 ways that
Jason Pepas said:
the other day I was moving several gigs of files from one ide drive to
another on the same ide chain (the secondary channel is broken) and my
load average went up to around 7 (no, not 0.07). The machine would
become unresponsive for several seconds at a time. This is a
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
To enable it install hdparm and then
run hdparm -d1 /dev/hdx as root
where x is either a,b,c,d
Or just get hwtools it creates a basic init.d script where you put your
hdparm flags
Bijan Soleymani wrote:
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by
Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
this before (this is a new install).
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
To enable it install hdparm and then
run hdparm -d1
Hallo ML,
mein fileserver hat heute nacht seltsamerweise ueber 70 smbd connections
bekommen, von diversen Rechnern in meinem Netzwerk. Soweit ok, sind aber alle
nicht mehr aktiv, tauchen aber noch im smbstatus auf. Lassen sich mit kill -9
nicht beenden. netstat zeigt CLOSE_WAIT bei allen an.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:59:43PM +0200, Proud Debian-User wrote:
Hallo ML,
Hallo Proud Debian-User,
[ Samba hat high load - Prozesse koennen nicht gekillt werden ]
Booten ist leider nicht drin, der Server ist in einem abgeschlossenen Raum
und bootet leider seid drei tagen nicht mehr
the same stuff, but with Slackware. Load was
never that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
always.
Any thoughts?
Jordi S. Bunster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
550 Mhz) running the same stuff, but with Slackware. Load was
never that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
always.
Any thoughts?
Jordi S. Bunster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
always.
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:51:51 -0300 (BRT)
Jordi S. Bunster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a Debian
Box keep its load average always over 6?
Not really. Did you try top to find out which processes are doing
that? Maybe you where running a
hi ay
or you could have a hacker running an irc on your machine
-- if the rest of your lan/machines is fine...
than probably not
c ya
alvin
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Alvin Oga wrote:
hi ya jordi
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
scripts. Perl is the compiled one, right?
what apps is running???
We JUST installed the server. I mean,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
JSB you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
JSB
JSB ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
JSB ( the same code...
JSB
JSB Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
JSB scripts. Perl is the compiled one,
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 11:18:41PM -0300, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
91 processes: 89 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 68.7% user, 31.2% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
Mem: 257856K av, 229104K used, 28752K free, 103600K shrd,
73192K buff
Swap: 128484K av, 0K used,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:18:41 -0300 (BRT)
Jordi S. Bunster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
scripts. Perl
mail servers didnt dip below load of 8 until i upgraded the
system's hardware. amavis is great..but if you got a lotta mail you
need more horsepower.
also if your using something like UW Imap that can be a cause for very
high load as well. i suggest switching to something else like CYRUS which
I installed kernel 2.4.2 and while it works ok most of the time there
were two occasions when computer (almost) froze, load being 100% and
almost nothing worked for about an hor or more.
both times this high load attack happened I opened xv (the thumbs
view) on a directory with large number
Erik Steffl wrote:
any ideas on what's going on?
login on an xterm from another machine and run top while you try that.
recently
i upgraded my firewall from a k6-3 400 to a p3-800 and doubled the memory to
512MB. but it was still much slower!! turns out the VIA ide chipset on the p3
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:12:16PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
huh? is
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:55:10PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
directly related. Load average is the average number of
it in different terms:
- Load average is how often you're asking for it.
- CPU utilization is how often you're getting it.
High load average means you've got more requests than you can handle.
But the actual efficiency of servicing of requests is not considered.
High utilization means you're
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:25:24PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The clarification is given in the O'Reilly citation. Runnable
processes, not waiting on other resources, I/O blocking excepted.
Excellent - thanks!
--
Linux will do for applications what the Internet did for networks.
Dear dUCK,
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
-Original Message-
From: MaD dUCK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:38 AM
To: debian users
Subject: high load average
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
directly related. Load average is the average number of processes that
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname -a
Linux albatross 2.2.17 #2 Mon Sep 04 20:49:27 CET 2000 i586 unknown
albatross:~$ uptime
2:56am up 174 days, 5:50, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.05, 2.01
# processes sorted by decreasing cpu usage
albatross:~$ ps aux | head -1 ps aux |
not during the last 1, 5, or 15 minutes. and
cron isn't running, there are *only* 35 running jobs. why, oh why then
is it 200% loaded???
Load average is not an indication of how busy the CPU is. A busy CPU
can *cause* a high load average, but so can other stuff.
In this case, I would guess
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:51:53PM -0500):
Load average is not an indication of how busy the CPU is. A busy CPU
can *cause* a high load average, but so can other stuff.
good point. so i found two offending processes in state D:
root 24520 0.0 0.9 1652 904
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:37:36PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname -a
Linux albatross 2.2.17 #2 Mon Sep 04 20:49:27 CET 2000 i586 unknown
albatross:~$ uptime
2:56am up 174 days, 5:50, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.05, 2.01
[cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
huh? is that what 2.00 means? the average length of the run queue?
that would explain it
Suresh Kumar posts:
I have never seen load averages going above 2
earlier with redhat installation.
On a similar setup while running Netscape ? Please
install libc5 and libg++272 found in /oldlibs of the
Debian 'slink' CD.
ragOO, VU2RGU. Kochi, INDIA.
Keeping the
Hi,
I recently installed a debian 2.1 on my machine which was earlier running
redhat 5.2. (pentium 100MHz, 16mb ram). The machine becomes very very slow
and unusable when I run netscape. I have dialup connection. The load
average goes 100 and more. I have never seen load averages going above 2
Recent versions of netscape will slow a 16Mb system to a crawl. How does the
system respond when you aren't running netscape? What window manager
are you using? What else are you running at the time. Check you netscape
memory cache size.
I would be wiling to bet the problem lies in the (lack
I have a dual-CPU system running potato with kernel 2.2.3.
Here's what top reports:
6:30pm up 36 days, 20:55, 10 users, load average: 5.22, 5.28, 5.17
152 processes: 147 sleeping, 2 running, 2 zombie, 1 stopped
CPU states: 0.4% user, 1.5% system, 0.0% nice, 97.9% idle
Mem: 516688K av,
* George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/26/99 18:59] wrote:
Do a ps -ax and see how many processes you have stuck in D state ;). Then
go and get 2.2.9
Yup, that explains it! I have 5 sxid processes in D state.
Hmmmcould it have something to do with the fact that I installed
arla 5 days ago
George Bonser wrote:
Any process involved with heavy net activity in an SMP system with 2.2.3
will do this. I had problems with web servers doing it. 2.2.9 seems OK.
2.2.6/7 were disasters. 2.2.5 seemed to work, though.
Hm, could you expand on that? I've been using 2.2.7 for a while, what
I'm running a Debian 1.3.1 system and find the machine, when put into our
production environment here, after a little while causes the machine's
load to rise, and keep on going. It was so bad it got up to 150+ once. At
any ratI ran top one time and nothing was using any large amount of CPU,
nor
From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a system.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Shaleh wrote:
From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a system.
From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a system. We run a shell
machine, a dns server,
98 matches
Mail list logo
