On Sun, 24 May 2009 20:22:37 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote, *again* without attribution:
From the glossary (p. 630) of _The_Design_and_Implementation_of_the
_FreeBSD_Operating_System_ by McKusick and Neville-Neil:
load average A measure of CPU
Yuri wrote:
Look below: load over 7 and no processes take much CPU.
Yuri
7.2-PRERELEASE, 32-bit on i7-920.
last pid: 93192; load averages: 7.68, 6.27,
4.61
2009/5/24 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
From the glossary (p. 630) of _The_Design_and_Implementation_of_the
_FreeBSD_Operating_System_ by McKusick and Neville-Neil:
load average A measure of CPU load on the system. The load
average
in FreeBSD is
first - says that it's measure of CPU load
then - or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O - which is NOT
measure of CPU load.
You are mistaken. I think what you are referring to is the percentage of
no i'm not. doing lots of I/O and little CPU load produces high load
average.
first - says that it's measure of CPU load
then - or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O - which is NOT
measure of CPU load.
Er, what? Of course it is!
amount of disk I/O is a measure of CPU load? seems you are true expert ;)
___
2009/5/25 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
first - says that it's measure of CPU load
then - or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O - which is NOT
measure of CPU load.
Er, what? Of course it is!
amount of disk I/O is a measure of CPU load? seems you are true
Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/25 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
first - says that it's measure of CPU load
then - or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O - which is NOT
measure of CPU load.
Er, what? Of course it is!
amount of disk I/O is a measure of CPU load? seems
2009/5/25 Peter Boosten pe...@boosten.org:
Chris Rees wrote:
2009/5/25 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
first - says that it's measure of CPU load
then - or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O - which is NOT
measure of CPU load.
Er, what? Of course it is!
amount
Do you ever think before you type? You regularly fill this mailing
list with crap
please don't name things crap just because you don't understand
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_'
exactly what i said.
In that case he's correct: whenever the CPU has to wait a lot for I/O,
like network and disk, then the _load_ will go up, while the CPU
_utilization_ stays low.
and that's inconsistent with
On 25 mei 2009, at 19:12, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_'
exactly what i said.
Regardless from what you said: you _wrote_ CPU _load_, not cpu
_utilization_, which are two completely different thingemies. The load
averages
Regardless from what you said: you _wrote_ CPU _load_, not cpu
what's a difference for you between CPU load and CPU utilization?
i mean CPU load not system load.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 25 mei 2009, at 21:08, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Regardless from what you said: you _wrote_ CPU _load_, not cpu
what's a difference for you between CPU load and CPU utilization?
i mean CPU load not system load.
The CPU will perform the same, whether at 10% utilization, or at 100%
The CPU will perform the same, whether at 10% utilization, or at 100%
utilization, the system however won't.
That's the difference between load and utilization.
still don't understand you.
CPU will not perform the same at 10% utilization, it will perform 10 times
less than at 100%
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
The CPU will perform the same, whether at 10% utilization, or at 100%
utilization, the system however won't.
That's the difference between load and utilization.
still don't understand you.
CPU will not
On 25 mei 2009, at 21:24, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The CPU will perform the same, whether at 10% utilization, or at
100% utilization, the system however won't.
That's the difference between load and utilization.
still don't understand you.
CPU will not perform the same at 10% utilization,
Not true. top(1) can fully utilize the CPU. Doing so does not put
the system under full load.
top uses small percentage of CPU power. if it would use all - it WOULD
mean full CPU load.
load average is how much processes (by average) is not doing calculations
because something is not yet
The CPU = Central Processing Unit will perform it's calculations at so many
megahertz while at 10% utilization or at 100% utilization. The entire machine
no. it will not. all today x86 CPUs reacts on HLT command and doesn't do
anything except waiting for interrupt (and saving lots of power).
On 25 mei 2009, at 21:37, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The CPU = Central Processing Unit will perform it's calculations
at so many megahertz while at 10% utilization or at 100%
utilization. The entire machine
no. it will not. all today x86 CPUs reacts on HLT command and
doesn't do anything
2009/5/25 Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
you are funny.
Don't ever send me private messages like that.
You are a troll who gives harmful and misleading advice.
Chris
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad
On Mon, 25 May 2009 21:42:40 +0200
Peter Boosten pe...@boosten.org wrote:
On 25 mei 2009, at 21:37, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
The CPU = Central Processing Unit will perform it's
calculations at so many megahertz while at 10% utilization or at
100% utilization. The entire machine
no.
you are funny.
Don't ever send me private messages like that.
You are a troll who gives harmful and misleading advice.
exactly because of sentences like that i think you are funny.
sorry - but you moved this to public
___
Do you actually read back what you write: you're saying here that when a CPU
has only 10% utilization, it'll run slower than when performing at 100%...
i said it perform 10 times less work than when 100% utilized. exactly -
read back again.
I'm giving up ;-)
looks like you just want to
performing at 100%...
While it's not the default behaviour, if you run powerd(8) then
yes, the CPU will run slower when it's less utilized.
that's extra,and very useful option.
anyway even without that modern processor gets MUCH less power just when
being halted by hlt instruction. there is
Yuri wrote:
Look below: load over 7 and no processes take much CPU.
Yuri
7.2-PRERELEASE, 32-bit on i7-920.
last pid: 93192; load averages: 7.68, 6.27,
4.61
Hi, Matthew
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Seaman
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
Yuri wrote:
[snip]
Sure. This is not an uncommon occurrence really. The load average is
the number of processes in the queue for a CPU time slice averaged over
5, 10 or 15 minutes. For
Glen Barber wrote:
Hi, Matthew
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Matthew Seaman
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
Yuri wrote:
[snip]
Sure. This is not an uncommon occurrence really. The load average is
the number of processes in the queue for a CPU time slice averaged over
5, 10 or 15
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
I thought, if it was a dual-core for example, a load average of 1.00
would indicate 50% CPU utilization overall (1 process using only 1
core)[1]. 2.00 on a dual-core would be 100%, 3.00 on a dual-core
would be 100% utilization, and
Look below: load over 7 and no processes take much CPU.
load average is NOT sum of CPU loads.
for example program reading constantly from HDD and using no CPU will add
1 to load average.
other things like net I/O etc. are calculated too. i can't explain you
exactly how because i don't
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:57:08 +0200 (CEST) Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote without proper attribution:
Look below: load over 7 and no processes take much CPU.
load average is NOT sum of CPU loads.
for example program reading constantly from HDD and using no CPU will add
From the glossary (p. 630) of _The_Design_and_Implementation_of_the
_FreeBSD_Operating_System_ by McKusick and Neville-Neil:
load average A measure of CPU load on the system. The load average
in FreeBSD is an average of the number of processes ready to
This guy advises buying an old G4 Mac laptop to use as a netbook:
http://lowendmac.com/ed/herlihy/09ph/ibook-netbook.html
While Apple might be planning to stop supporting PowerPC, one could run
FreeBSD on it.
Mac-Pro has good prices on used Mac laptops. A G4 PowerBook is $500 to
$650
On Sun, 24 May 2009 12:02:41 -0700, Michael David Crawford m...@prgmr.com
wrote:
Mac-Pro has good prices on used Mac laptops. A G4 PowerBook is $500 to
$650 depending on what kind of burner is installed.
http://www.mac-pro.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.66/.f
Hmmm... I still think about
I was just now looking into ARM netbooks. I think there's only one actual
shipping model so far, but ARM shows great promise because ARM CPUs use very
little power. I expect there will be lots of them by the end of the year.
Is there a FreeBSD ARM port? There's not one for 7.2.
there are
Is there a FreeBSD ARM port? There's not one for 7.2.
I'm not aware of one, but I think NetBSD has it. But
finally, NetBSD isn't FreeBSD. :-)
quite a big difference. was enough for me to switch to FreeBSD some time
ago.
___
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Michael David Crawford m...@prgmr.com wrote:
This guy advises buying an old G4 Mac laptop to use as a netbook:
http://lowendmac.com/ed/herlihy/09ph/ibook-netbook.html
While Apple might be planning to stop supporting PowerPC, one could run
FreeBSD on it.
36 matches
Mail list logo
