From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Sep 27 19:13:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D75F16A4CE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:13:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com (imo-d21.mx.aol.com [205.188.144.207])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E4443D54
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:13:47 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from TM4525@aol.com)
Received: from TM4525@aol.com
	by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.7.) id d.1ec.2a8cb768 (3964);
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:13:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: TM4525@aol.com
Message-ID: <1ec.2a8cb768.2e89c062@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:13:38 EDT
To: jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1
cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Device polling performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:13:48 -0000

In a message dated 9/27/04 3:04:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jerrymc@clunix.cl.msu.edu writes:
> Mike at sentex.net previously wrote:
> 
> "Given a decent CPU, you wont see very much of a load average at all in the 
> 200Kpps / 100Mb range."

Note that load average and CPU usage are two intirely different things.
You could have a huge amount of CPU usage with a load average hovering
around zero and somewhat vice versa too - eg high load average without
a great deal of CPU usage - though that would be less common.

////jerry
Since device polling is entirely a kernel process (and userland "load 
average" has nothing to do with it), his statement would have been 
completely irrelevent if he were, in fact, talking about userland load 
average. Load average is virtually useless and shouldn't be part of any
conversation originating after 1990.