Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:10:59 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com> To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon) Cc: toasty@dragondata.com (Kevin Day), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Load average calculation? Message-ID: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> In-Reply-To: <200004030349.UAA52843@apollo.backplane.com> from "Matthew Dillon" at Apr 02, 2000 08:49:10 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :We recently upgraded a server from 2.2.8 to 4.0(the same behavior is shown > :on 5.0-current, too). Before, with the exact same load, we'd see load > :averages from between 0.20 and 0.30. Now, we're getting: > : > :load averages: 4.16, 4.23, 4.66 > : > :Top shows the same CPU percentages, just a much higher load average for the > :same work being done. Did the load average calculation change, or something > :with the scheduler differ? Customers are complaining that the load average > :is too high, which is kinda silly, since 4.0 seems noticably faster in some > :cases. > : > :Any ideas? > : > :Kevin > > I believe the load average was changed quite a while ago to reflect not > only runnable processes but also processes stuck in disk-wait. It's > a more accurate measure of load. > Ahh, and since nearly everything is done on this system via NFS, I can imagine that several things are waiting for NFS responses. 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? :) Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004030410.XAA75906>