From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 3 11:13:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.med.und.nodak.edu (smtp.med.und.NoDak.edu [134.129.166.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08E237B79B for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:13:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bpederson@geocities.com) Received: from accord.med.und.nodak.edu ([134.129.166.13] helo=geocities.com) by smtp.med.und.nodak.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #3) id 12cBLm-000KFa-00 for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:13:23 -0500 Message-ID: <38E8DEEF.7224C9A@geocities.com> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:11:59 -0500 From: Barry Pederson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Load average calculation? References: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 11:10 PM -0500 2000/4/2, Kevin Day wrote: > > > 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. Or am I the > > only one that even cares about this? :) > > It's also extremely confusing for Linux users/admins who are used > to the system rolling over and dying if the load average ever gets > over 2.0 (and panic'ing if the load average goes over 4.0), and who > see FreeBSD capable of surviving (if not necessarily performing very > well) with load averages as high as 100 or even 200. Won't this also goof up programs like Exim (an SMTP MTA), that have some settings available for how to handle messages under various loads (process now, queue for later, etc)? Barry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message