From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 3 4:59:13 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from morpheus.skynet.be (morpheus.skynet.be [195.238.2.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2E837BD81 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 04:59:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by morpheus.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC0FDADA; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:58:50 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> References: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:56:12 +0200 To: Kevin Day , dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon) From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Load average calculation? Cc: toasty@dragondata.com (Kevin Day), current@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 11:10 PM -0500 2000/4/2, Kevin Day wrote: > 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? :) It's also extremely confusing for Linux users/admins who are used to the system rolling over and dying if the load average ever gets over 2.0 (and panic'ing if the load average goes over 4.0), and who see FreeBSD capable of surviving (if not necessarily performing very well) with load averages as high as 100 or even 200. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124 Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels http://www.skynet.be || Belgium To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message