On 06/02/11 02:31, Corey wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:16 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
I had tinkered with a solution for this:
Cron wakes up a minute before the batch run is scheduled to run.
Cron will
then copy a random 4kb sector from the hard disk to RAM, then run
either an
MD5 or SHA
On 06/03/11 16:10, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 06/02/11 02:31, Corey wrote:
On 06/01/2011 10:16 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
I had tinkered with a solution for this:
Cron wakes up a minute before the batch run is scheduled to run.
Cron will
then copy a random 4kb sector from the hard
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
| Then perhaps lean to write. If you're measuring a different
| phenomenon, one that has different units, then it's a distinctly
| different *calculation* becuase you're measuring a distinct collection
| of objects. One may as well
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
100% right. The load average calculation has not changed in 25 years.
Anyone who says otherwise hasn't got a single fact on their side.
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Paul de Weerd we...@weirdnet.nl wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:12:54AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
| Then perhaps lean to write. If you're measuring a different
| phenomenon, one that has different units, then it's a distinctly
| different *calculation*
On 2011-06-02 13.36, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Thinking about this. I'm not saying that this implies *OpenBSD*
changed its calculaton. As Theo pointed out, other kernels have
changed what they report to the load tool. So that shifts the
measure on other kernels. Perhaps he took this personally.
On 2011-05-31 14.45, Artur Grabowski wrote:
The load average is a decaying average of the number of processes in
the runnable state or currently running on a cpu or in the process of
being forked or that have spent less than a second in a sleep state
with sleep priority lower than PZERO, which
Load is generally a measure of a single processor core utilization over an
kernel dependent time range.
Generally as others have pointed out being a very broad (not as in meadow,
as in continent). Different OS's report load very differently from each
other today.
Traditionally you would see a
On 2011-06-01 15.12, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
Load is generally a measure of a single processor core utilization over an
kernel dependent time range.
No it isn't. You have totally misunderstood what the load average is.
Generally as others have pointed out being a very broad (not as in
On 01-Jun-11 05:46, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-05-31 14.45, Artur Grabowski wrote:
The load average is a decaying average of the number of processes in
the runnable state or currently running on a cpu or in the process of
being forked or that have spent less than a second in a sleep state
On 1 June 2011 11:01, LeviaComm Networks n...@leviacomm.net wrote:
On 01-Jun-11 05:46, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-05-31 14.45, Artur Grabowski wrote:
The load average is a decaying average of the number of processes in
the runnable state or currently running on a cpu or in the process of
On 2011-06-01 15.53, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
On 2 June 2011 01:41, Benny Lofgren bl-li...@lofgren.biz
mailto:bl-li...@lofgren.biz 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
On 2011-06-01 17.16, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
On 1 June 2011 11:01, LeviaComm Networks n...@leviacomm.net wrote:
On 01-Jun-11 05:46, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-05-31 14.45, Artur Grabowski wrote:
The load average is a decaying average of the number of processes in
the runnable state
On 2011-06-01 15.53, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
On 2 June 2011 01:41, Benny Lofgren bl-li...@lofgren.biz
mailto:bl-li...@lofgren.biz 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
On 01-Jun-11 08:39, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-06-01 17.16, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
On 1 June 2011 11:01, LeviaComm Networksn...@leviacomm.net wrote:
On 01-Jun-11 05:46, Benny Lofgren wrote:
On 2011-05-31 14.45, Artur Grabowski wrote:
The load average is a decaying average of the
On 1 June 2011 17:49, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
What has changed, however, is that the kernel has more kernel threads
running (for instance, ps aguxk, and look at the first few which have
the 'K' flag set in the 'STAT' field.
In ps aguxk, what does the g do? I didn't find
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:49:17AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
On 2011-06-01 15.53, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
On 2 June 2011 01:41, Benny Lofgren bl-li...@lofgren.biz
mailto:bl-li...@lofgren.biz wrote:
I agree with what you are saying, and I worded this quite badly, the
frame I was
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:09:03PM +0200, ropers wrote:
On 1 June 2011 17:49, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
What has changed, however, is that the kernel has more kernel threads
running (for instance, ps aguxk, and look at the first few which have
the 'K' flag set in the
On 06/01/2011 10:16 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
I had tinkered with a solution for this:
Cron wakes up a minute before the batch run is scheduled to run. Cron will
then copy a random 4kb sector from the hard disk to RAM, then run either an
MD5 or SHA hash against it. The whole process
On 1 June 2011 17:49, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
What has changed, however, is that the kernel has more kernel threads
running (for instance, ps aguxk, and look at the first few which have
the 'K' flag set in the 'STAT' field.
In ps aguxk, what does the g do? I
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
On 2011-06-01 15.53, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
On 2 June 2011 01:41, Benny Lofgren bl-li...@lofgren.biz
mailto:bl-li...@lofgren.biz wrote:
I agree with what you are saying, and I worded this quite badly, the
100% right. The load average calculation has not changed in 25 years.
Anyone who says otherwise hasn't got a single fact on their side.
What has changed, however, is that the kernel has more kernel threads
running (for instance, ps aguxk, and look at the first few which have
the 'K'
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
100% right. The load average calculation has not changed in 25 years.
Anyone who says otherwise hasn't got a single fact on their side.
What has changed, however, is that the kernel has more kernel threads
Le 31 mai 2011 ` 00:15, Paul de Weerd a icrit :
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:44:29PM +0200, Joel Carnat wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I am running a personal Mail+Web system on a Core2Duo 2GHz using
Speedstep.
| It is mostly doing nothing but still has a high load average.
Wait, what ? ~1 is 'a high load
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
Le 31 mai 2011 ` 02:19, Gonzalo L. R. a icrit :
Take a look of this
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20090715034920
I found this article before posting.
But one thing that didn't convinced me is that, if I shutdown apmd and
configure hw.setperf=100, the load drops down to 0.30-0.20.
Joel Carnat wrote:
But one thing that didn't convinced me is that, if I shutdown apmd and
configure hw.setperf=100, the load drops down to 0.30-0.20.
I don't get how A high load is just that: high. It means you have a lot
of processes that sometimes run. can show load variation depending on
CPU
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
From: Joel Carnat j...@carnat.net
Sent: Tue May 31 09:10:59 CEST 2011
To: Tony Abernethy t...@servasoftware.com
Subject: Re: I don't get where the load comes from
Le 31 mai 2011 ` 08:10, Tony Abernethy a icrit :
Joel Carnat wrote
well, compared to my previous box, running NetBSD
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Francois Pussault
fpussa...@contactoffice.fr wrote:
load is not realy a cpu usage %.
In facts it is sum of many % (cpu real load, memory, buffers, etc...)
that explain why load can up over 5.0 for each cpu without any crash or freeze
of the host.
we should
On May 31, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Francois Pussault
fpussa...@contactoffice.fr wrote:
load is not realy a cpu usage %.
In facts it is sum of many % (cpu real load, memory, buffers, etc...)
that explain why load can up over 5.0
So it is why I mentioned it is not real but a user-land approach of it can be
understood.
From: Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com
Sent: Tue May 31 11:07:46 CEST 2011
To: Misc OpenBSD misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: I don't get where the load comes from
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Francois Pussault
fpussa...@contactoffice.fr wrote:
Hi all,
load is not realy a cpu usage %.
In facts it is sum of many % (cpu real load, memory, buffers, etc...)
No, it isn't.
we should consider load as a host ressources %...
No, we shouldn't.
The load
Hi,
I am running a personal Mail+Web system on a Core2Duo 2GHz using Speedstep.
It is mostly doing nothing but still has a high load average.
I've check various stat tools but didn't find the reason for the load.
Anyone has ideas?
TIA,
Jo
PS: here are some of the results I checked.
#
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:44:29PM +0200, Joel Carnat wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I am running a personal Mail+Web system on a Core2Duo 2GHz using Speedstep.
| It is mostly doing nothing but still has a high load average.
Wait, what ? ~1 is 'a high load average' now ? What are that
database and webserver
Take a look of this
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20090715034920
El 05/30/11 18:44, Joel Carnat escribis:
Hi,
I am running a personal Mail+Web system on a Core2Duo 2GHz using Speedstep.
It is mostly doing nothing but still has a high load average.
I've check various stat tools
36 matches
Mail list logo
