Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:12:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Peter Boosten <peter@boosten.org> Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Scott Bennett <bennett@cs.niu.edu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: How can this 'top' command output make sense? Load over 7 and total CPU use ~5% Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251912000.40022@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org> References: <200905241315.n4ODFB96007801@mp.cs.niu.edu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905242021440.33060@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <b79ecaef0905250104p55c302cdh102202d1a06a389b@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251013500.36458@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <b79ecaef0905250133n5cd641dv6ca8e088f8fa2f33@mail.gmail.com> <4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_' exactly what i said. > > 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. and that's inconsistent with explanation that load average is measure of CPU load. it's not.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251912000.40022>