What is behind that server? If there are many servers/clients behind that 
server that require net access and that box functions as the gateway, then it 
is not really a surprisement that the loads are so high.

Also, how many users are connected to that server? A few users won't bring 
that much load, but having twenty or thirty of them connected will bring 
quite a load to the CPU. It would make sense that Squid and NAT are using so 
much CPU time then.

Your script may be small, but if again used by the same thirty people then 
perl will put quite a load on the server.

Cheers,

Jorn

On Wednesday 25 February 2004 16:27, hugle wrote:
> In last past days, users confirmed of big lag in games..
> I looged into the server, and saw big proccessor usage there:
>
> last pid: 90449;  load averages:  5.55,  9.11,  6.74                       
>                          up 21+19:48:35  17:18:34 68 processes:  5 running,
> 63 sleeping
> CPU states: 29.6% user,  0.0% nice, 34.6% system, 35.8% interrupt,  0.0%
> idle Mem: 321M Active, 1313M Inact, 286M Wired, 85M Cache, 199M Buf, 3488K
> Free Swap: 4079M Total, 216K Used, 4079M Free
>
>   PID USERNAME PRI NICE  SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU    CPU COMMAND
> 46087 root      62   0  8912K  8624K RUN    393:39 28.86% 28.86% natd
> 63795 nobody    62   0   191M   190M RUN     22:38 22.61% 22.61% squid
> 87001 root      -6   0  9288K  8756K piperd   0:04  7.57%  7.57% perl
> 60589 root       2   0   672K   368K sbwait 297:12  0.24%  0.24% natd
> 65212 root      66  19 17416K 15684K RUN     89:50  0.00%  0.00% mlnet-real
>
> perl# uptime
>  5:24PM  up 21 days, 19:54, 2 users, load averages: 8.05, 11.78, 8.94
>
> i have a little sciprt running avery 5 minutes.. it uses perl, but..
>
> why natd is using so much resourses ?
> there I have to dig the problem?
> and why active memory is so low ?;/
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to