From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 21 22:35:29 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4033316A4CE; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:35:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CD743D58; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:35:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1LMZJJA025556; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:35:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j1LMZIGw025555; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:35:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:35:18 -0500 From: David Schultz To: "David G. Lawrence" Message-ID: <20050221223518.GA25518@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: "David G. Lawrence" , Poul-Henning Kamp , Robert Watson , Christian Jachmann , current@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20050221210834.GB87259@opteron.dglawrence.com> <45820.1109020342@critter.freebsd.dk> <20050221213337.GC87259@opteron.dglawrence.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050221213337.GC87259@opteron.dglawrence.com> cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: Robert Watson cc: Christian Jachmann cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Load over 1000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:35:29 -0000 On Mon, Feb 21, 2005, David G. Lawrence wrote: > > No, disk I/O sleeps is not involved. > > > > The loadavg is the length of the runqueue. Any process sleeping, > > on network, disk or timer, is not counted towards the total. > > I said "historically". :-) > This was changed in FreeBSD a some years ago. Even further back in history, TENEX computed the load average based on runnable jobs. :-P See footnote 1 of RFC 546.