In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Ev
ans writes:
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Ian Dowse wrote:
>> effect in the load calculation, but even for the shorter 5-minute
>> timescale, this will average out to typically no more than a few
>> percent (i.e the "5 minutes" will instead normally be approx 4.8
>
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Ev
> ans writes:
> >
> >I think that is far too much variation. 5 seconds is hard-coded into
> >the computation of the load average (constants in cexp[]), so even a
> >variation of +-1 ticks breaks the computation slig
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Ev
ans writes:
>
>I think that is far too much variation. 5 seconds is hard-coded into
>the computation of the load average (constants in cexp[]), so even a
>variation of +-1 ticks breaks the computation slightly.
I have not changed the mean inter-sample tim
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Ian Dowse wrote:
> The patch below causes the samples of running processes to be
> somewhat randomised; instead of being taken every 5 seconds, the
> gap now varies in the range 4 to 6 seconds, so that synchronisation
> should no longer occur. Would there be any objections to
On 15-Jul-01 Ian Dowse wrote:
>
> There are a few PRs and a number of messages in the mailing list
> archives that describe a problem where the load average occasionally
> remains at 1.0 or greater even though top(1) reports that the CPU
> is nearly 100% idle. The PRs I could find in a quick sea
