From owner-freebsd-stable  Thu Dec 13 10: 5:49 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from web11601.mail.yahoo.com (web11601.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.172.53])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B64C937B41B
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20011213180539.83207.qmail@web11601.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [24.189.82.162] by web11601.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:05:39 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:05:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Holt Grendal <holtor@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Load Averages 
To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>
Cc: stable@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <200112131801.aa19310@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Ian,

Gotcha! I understand how it works now. So ever since
freebsd was created until now load averages have been
wrong. hehe ok :o)

Holt

--- Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> In message
>
<20011213172108.10411.qmail@web11606.mail.yahoo.com>,
> Holtor writes:
> >I still fail to see why my systems loads went from
> >1.50 - 2.00. There's over 250 processes constantly
> >running in "select" state. Loads are now almost
> always
> >0.00 and sometimes touching 0.10
> 
> The changes to the load average calculation only
> added jitter to
> the timing of samples; the algorithm used to compute
> the load average
> from the samples is still the same. Could you post a
> `top' screen
> shot from the server in question? (make sure to
> leave top running
> for long enough to get the %idle etc lines filled
> in).
> 
> Is it possible that the processes spend the vast
> majority of the
> time sleeping in select(), but that previously their
> run periods
> were often synchronised with the samples used to
> calculate the load
> average, or maybe it was system processes such as
> bufdaemon whose
> run period was synchronised with the samples? If so,
> then maybe the
> old loads around 2.0 were simply wrong. In general
> the %idle figure
> in top should be close to 100% if the load is close
> to 0, so that
> is worth checking too.
> 
> Ian


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message