From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 30 16:02:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C77CD9 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from positron.dckd.nl (positron.dckd.nl [IPv6:2a02:898:62:f6::63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CF9419EC for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.12.167] (wlan.dagstuhl.de [192.76.146.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by positron.dckd.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A45A0F800A; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:02:45 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 under XenServer 6.2(SP1) - Higher load average? From: Jeroen van der Ham In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:02:45 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <35CC68FA-730F-4B74-94B8-EB612F7AF77E@dckd.nl> References: To: Karl Pielorz X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:02:56 -0000 Hi, I=92ve noticed this already back in June: = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/2013-June/001639.html Nothing really came out of the discussion there, but it doesn=92t really = seem worrying or have much an impact on performance though. Jeroen. On 30 Jan 2014, at 15:10, Karl Pielorz wrote: >=20 > I've just installed a couple of FreeBSD 10-R instances on our Xen = pool. The load averages on these machines seems to run higher for an = idle box, than FreeBSD 9.x did >=20 > e.g. 10.0-R (amd64 GENERIC): >=20 > last pid: 4219; load averages: 0.31, 0.23, 0.12 up 0+00:07:45 = 14:04:08 > 15 processes: 1 running, 14 sleeping > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > Mem: 16M Active, 15M Inact, 44M Wired, 20M Buf, 1893M Free > Swap: 2046M Total, 2046M Free >=20 >=20 > A 9.2-STABLE (amd64 XENHVM) instance on the same XenServer: >=20 > last pid: 76440; load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 up 2+15:07:27 = 14:05:10 > 22 processes: 1 running, 21 sleeping > CPU: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% idle > Mem: 13M Active, 128M Inact, 91M Wired, 59M Buf, 237M Free > Swap: 494M Total, 494M Free >=20 >=20 > Both have xe-guest-utilities installed. >=20 > The second box is actually technically busier than the first (as it's = routing traffic between it's interfaces - admittedly, not much). >=20 > But the load average on 10.0-R never settles to zero (like it did for = 9.x) >=20 > Just a bit confused as to if the user, nice, system and interrupt = times are zero - how can the LA be >0? >=20 > Anyone else noticed this? - I know an LA of 0.31 isn't the end of the = world - but it's a bit of a jump on 0.00... >=20 > -Karl > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"