From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 25 08:38:52 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D66D1065676 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 08:38:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from smtpq4.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq4.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17568FC14 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 08:38:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from [212.54.34.140] (helo=smtp9.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq4.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M8Vhn-00089C-TH; Mon, 25 May 2009 10:38:47 +0200 Received: from [84.25.72.219] (helo=ra.egypt.nl) by smtp9.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M8Vhm-0000Vs-Ni; Mon, 25 May 2009 10:38:46 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (xp.egypt.nl [192.168.13.35]) by ra.egypt.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED703983B; Mon, 25 May 2009 10:38:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:38:18 +0200 From: Peter Boosten User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: utisoft@gmail.com References: <200905241315.n4ODFB96007801@mp.cs.niu.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1M8Vhm-0000Vs-Ni X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=0.5, required 5, BAYES_50 0.00, CM_META_TB_NOARR 0.50, SPF_PASS -0.00) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: peter@boosten.org X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Wojciech Puchar , Scott Bennett , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Yuri Subject: Re: How can this 'top' command output make sense? Load over 7 and total CPU use ~5% X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:38:52 -0000 Chris Rees wrote: > 2009/5/25 Wojciech Puchar : >>>> first - says that it's measure of CPU load >>>> then - "or waiting for short-term events such as disk I/O" - which is NOT >>>> measure of CPU load. >>>> >>> Er, what? Of course it is! >>> >> amount of disk I/O is a measure of CPU load? seems you are true expert ;) >> > > Do you ever think before you type? You regularly fill this mailing > list with crap, incorrect advice, and correcting experts on topics > that you haven't got a clue on. > > Just google load average and see for yourself. > > Remember checking things before making oneself look a fool? Perhaps > you used to do that at one time, most other people do. > > Chris > I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_' In that case he's correct: whenever the CPU has to wait a lot for I/O, like network and disk, then the _load_ will go up, while the CPU _utilization_ stays low. Peter -- http://www.boosten.org