From owner-freebsd-current Sun Apr 2 22:51:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from relay01.chello.nl (smtp.chello.nl [212.83.68.144]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA0237B50E for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 22:51:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wkb@chello.nl) Received: from chello.nl ([213.46.78.184]) by relay01.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.00 201-232-116 license 99c8f334c649856e3f2cdadc4054e412) with ESMTP id <20000403060010.DSXG11967.relay01@chello.nl>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:00:10 +0200 Received: (from wkb@localhost) by chello.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05595; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:51:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wkb) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:51:31 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte To: Kevin Day Cc: Matthew Dillon , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Load average calculation? Message-ID: <20000403075130.B5528@yedi.wbnet> Reply-To: wc.bulte@chello.nl References: <200004030349.UAA52843@apollo.backplane.com> <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com>; from toasty@dragondata.com on Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:10:59PM -0500 X-OS: FreeBSD 3.4-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:10:59PM -0500, Kevin Day wrote: > > :We recently upgraded a server from 2.2.8 to 4.0(the same behavior is shown > > :on 5.0-current, too). Before, with the exact same load, we'd see load > > :averages from between 0.20 and 0.30. Now, we're getting: > > : > > :load averages: 4.16, 4.23, 4.66 > > : > > :Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the > > :same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something > > :with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average > > :is too high, which is kinda silly, since 4.0 seems noticably faster in some > > :cases. > > : > > :Any ideas? > > : > > :Kevin > > > > I believe the load average was changed quite a while ago to reflect not > > only runnable processes but also processes stuck in disk-wait. It's > > a more accurate measure of load. > > Ahh, and since nearly everything is done on this system via NFS, I can > imagine that several things are waiting for NFS responses. > > It's probably more accurate, but from a PR standpoint it makes it "look" > like FreeBSD is choking under the load, when it really isn't. Or am I the > only one that even cares about this? :) What does the man page for 'w' say about it? At least the change should be reflected there I guess. -- Wilko Bulte Arnhem, The Netherlands http://www.tcja.nl The FreeBSD Project: http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message