From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 14 8:39:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A69B37B503 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:39:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e9EFdgo27674; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:39:42 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Per_Hallstr=F6m_NV98ATe?= Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: load average, to small to be true.. Message-ID: <20001014083941.A272@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from Per_Hallstrom_NV98ATe@teknikum.vaxjo.se on Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 04:00:38PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Per Hallström NV98ATe [001014 06:57] wrote: > It seems I'm the only one that has discovered that FreeBSD (i have > tried up to 4.1-RELEASE) dosen't want the load to be more than 1024, or > maybe the only one that thinks it's annoying.. =) Why? > > I know FreeBSD can run more processes than that - I have tried with > about 7000, running at the same time... too bad I can't see an > impressive load average... > > It can't be that much extra work for the kernel to hold just some extra > bits to support load averages that is far beyond reality, can it? You probably want to rase maxusers in your kernel config. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message