From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 3 9:49:39 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from celery.dragondata.com (celery.dragondata.com [205.253.12.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBA037B54F for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:49:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from toasty@celery.dragondata.com) Received: (from toasty@localhost) by celery.dragondata.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA77005; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:48:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from toasty) From: Kevin Day Message-Id: <200004031648.LAA77005@celery.dragondata.com> Subject: Re: Load average calculation? To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:48:22 -0500 (CDT) Cc: toasty@dragondata.com (Kevin Day), dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200004031636.MAA14574@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Apr 03, 2000 12:36:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > < said: > > > 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. > > Actually, you have it backwards -- it makes it look as if FreeBSD is > *not* choking under what appears to be a very heavy load.... > > -GAWollman > Well, my first impression was "Well, before doing this task the load average was only 0.20, now it's 4.0, obviously it can't keep up now." Which could probably be extended to "Under Linux the load average for running my database is only 0.20, FreeBSD's is 4.0, Linux must be faster." Granted it's flawed logic, but it's all a matter of perception at times. Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message