John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:39:52 +0800:
> Some years ago I used to boot off a Quantum LPS 170. It had some more
> stuff on it, probably /tmp.
>
> It died and managed to hang a couple of process.
>
> I manged to reconfigure the system without taking it down,
Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> ...
> Hmm. So, the general consensus is that it's not a problem; and it
> certainly doesn't seem to affect interactivity or performance at all. It's
> my home box, not a server or anything, and it normally has very low loads,
> 10-15% maybe when I'm using it and essentiall
Tim Connors wrote:
If it stays in D for long continuously (as opposed to intermitently
and for a few seconds - eg. while accessing the disk), then there is
probably a kernel bug involved somewhere.
If however, the load goes away after some time, maybe it is not
something to worry about. Were you wa
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:13:42 -0500:
> Hmm. So, the general consensus is that it's not a problem; and it
> certainly doesn't seem to affect interactivity or performance at all. It's
> my home box, not a server or anything, and it normally has very low loads,
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:10:08 +0200, Paul Gear wrote:
>
> Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> /proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
>>
>> 0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
>>
>> xload also reports roughly the same.
>>
>> But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle)
Tim Connors wrote:
John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:34:03 +0800:
Tim Connors wrote:
Oh - and the waiting 5 seconds for your bash *shell* to echo a single
character keypress. .
At present I'm working from home by dialup. I frequently run gvim as a
scra
John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 04 Aug 2004 16:34:03 +0800:
> Tim Connors wrote:
> >Oh - and the waiting 5 seconds for your bash *shell* to echo a single
> >character keypress. .
>
> At present I'm working from home by dialup. I frequently run gvim as a
> scratch-pad from which
Tim Connors wrote:
As a test one day, I mounted nfs over the modem, and ran about 300
processes doing a find over the modem. CPU usage was ~10%, 15 minute
load was above 200 :)
On a RHL box (Pentium II 233, 128 Mbytes), logrotate decided it was
going to rotate indefinitely.
It was few days bef
Nate Duehr wrote:
> ...
> emacs!! Hey there's your problem right there! Teach those undergrads to code
> in vi and they'd have had lots more CPU and the box wouldn't have been
> swapping so much!
>
> (LOL! Sorry, it just *had* to be said just for tradition's sake!)
Hallelujah! Preach on,
On Tuesday 03 August 2004 22:08, Tim Connors wrote:
> At that time, I tried to help someone track down a missing brace in
> their C code, so I fired up emacs, waited 8 minutes, pressed C-x h
> C-M-\ and waited for another half hour before giving up and leaving
> her to fend for herself :)
emacs!!
Paul Gear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 04 Aug 2004 07:03:12 +1000:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
> --enig162A5A009C607900848B2DE4
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> > Hello ever
Edvard Majakari wrote:
John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As such, load averages below 1 mean system doesn't have any processes
(except perhaps the one being run) waiting to be served.
I believe it includes the one running.
.96 is very far from idle.
Yes, that's why I put
Nate Duehr wrote:
On Aug 3, 2004, at 11:12 AM, John Summerfield wrote:
I/I activity can push the load average up too: a high load average
does not mean the CPU is busy, though it often is.
Is that a typo John, I think you meant "I/O" as in input/output...
correct?
Indeed I do. I'm really not a
Greg Folkert wrote:
> ...
> Or how about a multi-threaded App server running hundreds(thousands in
> some cases) of servlets a minute... I admin'd a 32 Processor, 32GB of
> Memory machine that was capable of running a couple of thousand servlets
> a minute.
>
> The load average on this machine usu
On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 17:03, Paul Gear wrote:
> Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > /proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
> >
> > 0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
> >
> > xload also reports roughly the same.
> >
> > But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle)
Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> /proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
>
> 0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
>
> xload also reports roughly the same.
>
> But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle). What is going
> on? How can I find out what is causing my system
John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>As such, load averages below 1 mean system doesn't have any processes
>>(except perhaps the one being run) waiting to be served.
>>
>>
>>
> I believe it includes the one running.
> .96 is very far from idle.
Yes, that's why I put the "(except perhaps
On Aug 3, 2004, at 11:12 AM, John Summerfield wrote:
I/I activity can push the load average up too: a high load average
does not mean the CPU is busy, though it often is.
Is that a typo John, I think you meant "I/O" as in input/output...
correct?
--
Nate Duehr, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
Edvard Majakari wrote:
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
/proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
xload also reports roughly the same.
But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle). What is going
on? How can I find out what is causing my
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> /proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
>
> 0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
>
> xload also reports roughly the same.
>
> But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle). What is going
> on? How can I find out what is causing my system t
Hello everyone,
/proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
xload also reports roughly the same.
But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle). What is going
on? How can I find out what is causing my system to be so busy?
This is kernel 2.4.26.
I a
21 matches
Mail list logo
