Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:34:24 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se>, Justen Stepka <jstepka@chaos.winternet.com>, FreeBSD-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CPU Load Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971201092138.28657A-100000@shell.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199712010829.AAA02884@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, David Greenman wrote: > >On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Mattias Pantzare wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Justen Stepka wrote: > >> > >> > Recently I added memory to my NFS server (dx4-100 now w/ 32 megs of RAM), > >> > when I did this the overall system preformance increased dramiticly. The > >> > problem that I noticed was that when using NFS/NIS the CPU load climbs to > >> > about 4.0+, is there a special reason that this might be happening? > >> > >> The load value is not CPU load. It is the average number of processes > >> ready to run or waiting for disk I/O to complete. > > > > No, it is the average number of processes that are ready-to-run. > >Processes waiting for disk io (or any io) are not ready to run. > > Mattias Pantzare is correct. The load average is the number of runnable > processes plus the number of processes in a short-term (disk) wait. It's > meant to indicate the overall effect on interactive users, not necessarily > just the use of the CPU. Short term disk wait? Is there a long term disk wait too? What is the difference? There seem to be some differences in how different Unix systems calculate the load average. Linux seems to do something quite different for one. > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971201092138.28657A-100000>