From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 26 14:32:29 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B92106566B for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:32:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig001@lerwick.hopto.org) Received: from lerwick.hopto.org (lerwick.hopto.org [204.51.112.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFC68FC08 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4834 invoked by uid 98); 26 Jan 2011 14:39:33 +0000 Received: from 81.187.141.93 by mailserver (envelope-from , uid 82) with qmail-scanner-2.01 (clamdscan: 0.96.1/11509. spamassassin: 3.3.1. Clear:RC:1(81.187.141.93):. Processed in 0.024733 secs); 26 Jan 2011 14:39:33 -0000 Received: from 93.141.187.81.in-addr.arpa (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (81.187.141.93) by lerwick.hopto.org with SMTP; 26 Jan 2011 14:39:33 +0000 From: Craig Butler To: Chad Perrin In-Reply-To: <20110125183619.GA65845@guilt.hydra> References: <20110124235740.GA62134@guilt.hydra> <1295917366.59721.2.camel@main> <20110125030725.GA62670@guilt.hydra> <20110125183619.GA65845@guilt.hydra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:32:32 +0000 Message-ID: <1296052352.64846.2.camel@main> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: more CPU being used than I have (?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:32:29 -0000 On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 11:36 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 06:20:02AM -0700, Dmitri Brengauz wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > > > Do you have a reference to a relatively simple explanation of how that > > > weighting works (and why)? > > > > man 1 ps: > > > > %cpu The CPU utilization of the process; this is a decaying average > > over up to a minute of previous (real) time. Since the time > > base over which this is computed varies (since processes may be > > very young) it is possible for the sum of all %cpu fields to > > exceed 100%. > > Unfortunately, that doesn't explain why. > Chad, ASK GOOGLE !!! a quick google search gave me - http://forums13.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447627+1296052256266+28353475&threadId=57634 happy reading.. Regards Craig B