On 5/28/23 03:09, Christian wrote:
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 27 May 2023 16:30:05 -0700
On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
New day, new tests. Got a
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sat, 27 May 2023 16:30:05 -0700
>
> On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
>
> > New day, new tes
On 5/27/23 15:28, Christian wrote:
New day, new tests. Got a crash again, however with the message "AHCI
controller unavailable".
Figured that is the SATA drives not being plugged in the right order.
Corrected that and a 3:30h stress test went so far without any issues
besides this old bug
https
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Fri, 26 May 2023 18:22:17 -0700
>
> On 5/26/23 16:08, Christian wrote:
>
> > Good and bad
On 5/26/23 16:08, Christian wrote:
Good and bad things:
I started to test different setups (always with full 12 core stress
test). Boot from USB liveCD (only stress and s-tui installed):
- All disks disconnected, other than M2. Standard BIOS
- All disks disconnected, other than M2. Proper Memor
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 15:04:44 -0700
>
>
> > > > > What stresstest are you using?
>
>
On 5/21/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 14:22:22 -0700
On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
David Christensen Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
Heat sinks, heat pipes, water blocks, radiators, fans, ducts, etc..
I
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 14:22:22 -0700
>
> On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
> > David Christensen Sun,
On 5/21/23 06:31, Christian wrote:
David Christensen Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
>>> David Christensen Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
Please use inline posting style and proper indentation.
Phew... will be quite hard to read. But here you go.
It is not hard when you delete the porti
On 5/21/23 06:26, songbird wrote:
David Christensen wrote:
...
Measuring actual power supply output and system usage would involve
building or buying suitable test equipment. The cost would be non-trivial.
...
it depends upon how accurate you want to be and
how much power.
for my syst
David Christensen wrote:
...
> Measuring actual power supply output and system usage would involve
> building or buying suitable test equipment. The cost would be non-trivial.
...
it depends upon how accurate you want to be and
how much power.
for my system it was a simple matter of buying
> Ursprüngliche Nachricht
> Von: David Christensen
> An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
> Datum: Sun, 21 May 2023 03:11:43 -0700
>
> On 5/21/23 01:14, Christian wrote:
>
> > >
On 5/21/23 01:14, Christian wrote:
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
On 5/20/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
Hi there,
I am having trouble
where
unmounted. So would guess this would be a test to see if it is about
power?
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: David Christensen
An: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: Weird behaviour on System under high load
Datum: Sat, 20 May 2023 18:00:48 -0700
On 5/20/23 14:46, Chri
On 5/20/23 14:46, Christian wrote:
Hi there,
I am having trouble with a new build system. It works normal and stable
until I put extreme stress on it, e.g. using all 12 cores with stress
tool.
System will suddenly loose network connection and become unresponsive.
Only a reset works. I am not su
Hi there,
I am having trouble with a new build system. It works normal and stable
until I put extreme stress on it, e.g. using all 12 cores with stress
tool.
System will suddenly loose network connection and become unresponsive.
Only a reset works. I am not sure what is going on, but it is
reprod
Bob Proulx wrote:
> I don't know about the new Raspberry quad core. Does it have the same
> limited usb chip as the original?
It does. But because the CPU is more powerful (and you have 4 cores) you
can squeeze about 95MBit/s out of it.
Right now I am dd'ing a 600MB file over NFS (the Raspi2 i
Sven Hartge wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> > Sven Hartge wrote:
> >> Maybe the USB hardware implementation is better in the N900? The one
> >> in the Pi is quite bad and finicky.
I am coming to this discussion late but I had to confirm that the USB
chip in the Raspberry Pi is very limiting. It has a maxi
Reco wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:38:12 +0200 Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Maybe the USB hardware implementation is better in the N900? The one
>> in the Pi is quite bad and finicky.
> I happen to have Pi too. Not that I need an NFS server on it, NFS
> client is sufficient for my needs, but still.
Reco wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:38:12 +0200 Sven Hartge wrote:
> What I suspect was happening with your NFS server is the multiple
> knfsd threads in D-state (i.e. blocked by iowait by slof MMC card)
> *plus* this USB Ethernet interrupts. I'd start with lowering knfsd
> count.
That would a
roblem is not the speed of 3 MB/s it's the load of 12 and more.
> >>
> >> The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
> >> use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
>
> > What? Are you serious? I have
best conditions you may be able to transfer up to
>>>> 45MBit/s, but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
>>> The Problem is not the speed of 3 MB/s it's the load of 12 and more.
>>
>> The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If
;>>
>>> Under the best conditions you may be able to transfer up to 45MBit/s,
>>> but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
>
> The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
> use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a
Ethernet-Chip is attached via USB.
> > >
> > > Under the best conditions you may be able to transfer up to 45MBit/s,
> > > but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
>
> The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
> use th
t; > but a maximum transfer rate of about 35MBit/s is normal.
The load is so high because USB is very CPU-intensive. If you were to
use the on-board Ethernet, you would not see such a high load.
Petter
--
"I'm ionized"
"Are you sure?"
"I'm positive."
pgpb9DSiuayKO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
The Problem is not the speed of 3 MB/s it's the load of 12 and more.
On 19.06.2015 14:03, Sven Hartge wrote:
> basti wrote:
>
>> iotop show me a read speed around 3 MB/s, there is a Class 10 UHS card
>> (10-15 MB/s read, 9-5 MB/s write I guess).
> More than 3MByte/s is not really achievable with
basti wrote:
> iotop show me a read speed around 3 MB/s, there is a Class 10 UHS card
> (10-15 MB/s read, 9-5 MB/s write I guess).
More than 3MByte/s is not really achievable with a Pi-1, because the CPU
is very weak and the Ethernet-Chip is attached via USB.
Under the best conditions you may b
Hello,
perhaps thats a bit OT but I can't found a Rasbian or RaspberryPi
related mailinglist.
Per default nfs starts with 8 servers
root@raspberrypi:~# head -n 2 /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server
# Number of servers to start up
RPCNFSDCOUNT=8
So I try to transfer a 3GB file from the raspberry to my
Found this thread searching for a solution to my problem (which sounds
similar).
My solution was barrier=0 in /etc/fstab see
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ext4
Uh, specifically my problem was that loading large mysql files took
forever and would often end with mysql losing the connecti
So since there seems to be a few of us having this issue, are there any
Debian or linux kernel engineers out there who are willing to help? Is this
the best place for that?
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:50 PM, David Mckisick wrote:
> Same issue here exactly and have noticed this since upgrading to Wh
Same issue here exactly and have noticed this since upgrading to Wheezy. We
have also delayed upgrading the rest of our servers until this gets fixed.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Scott Ferguson <
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/07/13 00:30, Will Platnick wrote:
> > More
On 04/07/13 00:30, Will Platnick wrote:
> More troubleshooting steps:
>
> Built and installed latest 3.10 kernel, no change in interrupts
> Built and installed latest 2.6.32 kernel, and I am back to Squeeze level
> loads and no high timer, rescheduling, non-maskable or performance
> interrupts are
More troubleshooting steps:
Built and installed latest 3.10 kernel, no change in interrupts
Built and installed latest 2.6.32 kernel, and I am back to Squeeze level
loads and no high timer, rescheduling, non-maskable or performance
interrupts are present.
So, does anybody have any idea what chang
Something else I just noticed now that I'm on a screen high enough to show all of /proc/interrupts on one line:Non-maskable interrupts are happening on Wheezy whereas they didn't on Squeeze. Additionally, it seems Non-maskable interrupts and Performance monitoring are the same value all the time. -
s that my
>> Wheezy boxes have a load of over 3 and are not staying up during our peak
>> time, whereas our squeeze boxes have a load of less than 1.
>> The interesting part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are
>> actually performing quite well, and are out
f less than 1.
> The interesting part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are
> actually performing quite well, and are outperforming my squeeze boxes by 2-3
> ms. Never the less, the high load is giving us cause for concern and is
> stopping us from migrating completely, and w
software, just built on Wheezy instead of Squeeze. My problem is that my Wheezy boxes have a load of over 3 and are not staying up during our peak time, whereas our squeeze boxes have a load of less than 1. The interesting part, is that despite the high load, my wheezy boxes are actually performing
Hi Andrei,
How could that KMail can answer from the subject if marked, but I strongly
second Lisi´s notion of putting a legible text into the mail body and using a
fine descriptive and short enough subject for the mail.
Am Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013, 11:15:29 schrieb Andrei Hristow:
> Hi, I have
Hi Chaps,
I've upgraded a server running our database connection pool software from etch
on 2.6.18 to lenny on 2.6.26 and I'm now seeing intermittant high load averages.
I don't see anything CPU or IO bound on the machine using top and vmstat, and
I'm absoloutely baffled
Julien wrote:
Hi,
Since quite a long time now, we observe the same phenomenon on three
web servers we have on two different places. They regularly have
high load peaks, until 20 to 50. These peaks append very regularly
(from once a day to several an hour), and we can't explain why. It
do
Hi,
Since quite a long time now, we observe the same phenomenon on three
web servers we have on two different places. They regularly have
high load peaks, until 20 to 50. These peaks append very regularly
(from once a day to several an hour), and we can't explain why. It
doesn't
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=341055
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4590
Anyone have a work around? the "--round-robin" from the above link has
lessened the issue however it is still creating a load ave of over 12.0 !
I tried downgrading to sarge/stable f
Adam Garside wrote:
I have noticed high(ish) load averages (currently 2.08, last week it was
17!!), but there is no processes hogging the CPU, nor are we using any
[snip]
Check the output of ps(1) and look for processes in the 'D' state.
Nothing there. All seems fine.
Also,
check I/O wit
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:54:37PM +1200, Simon wrote:
[snip]
> I have noticed high(ish) load averages (currently 2.08, last week it was
> 17!!), but there is no processes hogging the CPU, nor are we using any
[snip]
Check the output of ps(1) and look for processes in the 'D' state. Also,
check
Hi There,
Running Debian woody as a LAMP(PHP) server, on a AMD 1.5GHz, 512MB RAM
with software RAID1...
I have noticed high(ish) load averages (currently 2.08, last week it was
17!!), but there is no processes hogging the CPU, nor are we using any
swap... any ideas where to start with this o
On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:44, Rus Foster wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
> > load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
>
> This would imply I/O wait for me. What sort of disks does it have?
Thats what I thought but thi
> Hi,
>
> I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
> load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
This would imply I/O wait for me. What sort of disks does it have?
> What bothers me is that load average used to stay under 0.16 previously
> - nothing h
Hi,
I seem to have a strange problem. I have a server which is showing a
load average of around 1 but cpu usage of 0.6% over two cpus.
What bothers me is that load average used to stay under 0.16 previously
- nothing has changed. I have already tried to see if there are any
processes blocking usi
Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
> > this before (this is a new install).
> >
> This is normal if dma is not enabled.
> It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
> To enable it install hdparm and then
> run
Or just get hwtools it creates a basic init.d script where you put your
hdparm flags
Bijan Soleymani wrote:
>>Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
>>this before (this is a new install).
>>
>>
>>
>This is normal if dma is not enabled.
>It isn't enable
> Is this normal? I don't seem to remember having ide performance issues like
> this before (this is a new install).
>
This is normal if dma is not enabled.
It isn't enabled by default in Debian.
To enable it install hdparm and then
run hdparm -d1 /dev/hdx as root
where x is either a,b,c,d depe
Jason Pepas said:
> the other day I was moving several gigs of files from one ide drive to
> another on the same ide chain (the secondary channel is broken) and my
> load average went up to around 7 (no, not 0.07). The machine would
> become unresponsive for several seconds at a time. This is
Have you checked your dma settings? hdparm/hwtools?
Ramon Kagan
York University, Computing and Network Services
Unix Team - Intermediate System Administrator
(416)736-2100 #20263
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
I have not failed. I have just
found 10,000 ways that don'
the other day I was moving several gigs of files from one ide drive to
another on the same ide chain (the secondary channel is broken) and my load
average went up to around 7 (no, not 0.07). The machine would become
unresponsive for several seconds at a time. This is a uniprocessor machine,
of big attachments?
one of my mail servers didnt dip below load of 8 until i upgraded the
system's hardware. amavis is great..but if you got a lotta mail you
need more horsepower.
also if your using something like UW Imap that can be a cause for very
high load as well. i suggest switching to
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 23:18:41 -0300 (BRT)
"Jordi S. Bunster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
> >
> > ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
> > ( the same code...
>
> Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
>
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 11:18:41PM -0300, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
> 91 processes: 89 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 68.7% user, 31.2% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> Mem: 257856K av, 229104K used, 28752K free, 103600K shrd,
> 73192K buff
> Swap: 128484K av, 0K used,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
JSB> > you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
JSB> >
JSB> > ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
JSB> > ( the same code...
JSB>
JSB> Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
JSB> scripts. Perl is the com
> you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
>
> ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
> ( the same code...
Mmm .. speaking about internal programs, we only have some perl
scripts. Perl is the compiled one, right?
> what apps is running???
We JUST installed the server. I me
hi ay
or you could have a hacker running an irc on your machine
-- if the rest of your lan/machines is fine...
than probably not
c ya
alvin
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> hi ya jordi
>
> you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
>
> ( amd and intel cpu behave slightly d
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:51:51 -0300 (BRT)
"Jordi S. Bunster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a Debian
> Box keep its load average always over 6?
Not really. Did you try top to find out which processes are doing
that? Maybe you where running a Net
50 Mhz) running the same stuff, but with Slackware. Load was
> never that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
> 25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
> always.
>
rong?
>
> Sidenote: We had another similar machine (processor was a PIII
> 550 Mhz) running the same stuff, but with Slackware. Load was
> never that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
> 25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
> always.
g the same stuff, but with Slackware. Load was
never that high, and the machine swapped all the time, at least
25 Megs. The new Debian Box never swaps, but has a high load
always.
Any thoughts?
Jordi S. Bunster
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Steffl wrote:
> any ideas on what's going on?
login on an xterm from another machine and run top while you try that.
recently
i upgraded my firewall from a k6-3 400 to a p3-800 and doubled the memory to
512MB. but it was still much slower!! turns out the VIA ide chipset on the p3
board(asu
I installed kernel 2.4.2 and while it works ok most of the time there
were two occasions when computer (almost) froze, load being 100% and
almost nothing worked for about an hor or more.
both times this high load attack happened I opened xv (the thumbs
view) on a directory with large number
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 03:25:24PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> The clarification is given in the O'Reilly citation. Runnable
> processes, not waiting on other resources, I/O blocking excepted.
Excellent - thanks!
--
Linux will do for applications what the Internet did for networks.
s just that: load average is concerned with CPU, it is
*not* concerned with memory, disk I/O (though I/O blocking can effect it),
etc. However, as I clarify in this current post, and my prior thread,
load average is not equivalent to CPU _utilization_.
To put it in different terms:
- Load ave
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:55:10PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
> > You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
> > directly related. Load average is the average number of
on Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:21:07AM -0600, Dave Sherohman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
> > isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
> > Not ?
>
> You have the notation correct, but load average and
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:12:16PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
>
> also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
> > It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
>
> huh?
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 06:09:41PM +0100, Joris Lambrecht wrote:
> isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
> Not ?
You have the notation correct, but load average and CPU utilization are not
directly related. Load average is the average number of processes that
Dear dUCK,
isn't 2.00 more like 2% ? It is US notation where . is a decimal separator.
Not ?
-Original Message-
From: MaD dUCK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:38 AM
To: debian users
Subject: high load average
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ una
[cc'ing this to PLUG because it seems interesting...]
also sprach kmself@ix.netcom.com (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 08:02:51PM -0800):
> It's not 200% loaded. There are two processes in the run queue. I'd do
huh? is that what 2.00 means? the average length of the run queue?
that would explain it becau
on Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 09:37:36PM -0500, MaD dUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> someone explain this to me:
>
> albatross:~$ uname -a
> Linux albatross 2.2.17 #2 Mon Sep 04 20:49:27 CET 2000 i586 unknown
>
> albatross:~$ uptime
> 2:56am up 174 days, 5:50, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.05, 2
also sprach Noah L. Meyerhans (on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:51:53PM -0500):
> Load average is not an indication of how busy the CPU is. A busy CPU
> can *cause* a high load average, but so can other stuff.
good point. so i found two offending processes in state D:
root 24520 0.0 0.9 165
used*, especially not during the last 1, 5, or 15 minutes. and
> cron isn't running, there are *only* 35 running jobs. why, oh why then
> is it 200% loaded???
Load average is not an indication of how busy the CPU is. A busy CPU
can *cause* a high load average, but so can other stuff.
someone explain this to me:
albatross:~$ uname -a
Linux albatross 2.2.17 #2 Mon Sep 04 20:49:27 CET 2000 i586 unknown
albatross:~$ uptime
2:56am up 174 days, 5:50, 1 user, load average: 2.00, 2.05, 2.01
# processes sorted by decreasing cpu usage
albatross:~$ ps aux | head -1 && ps aux | so
Suresh Kumar posts:
> I have never seen load averages going above 2
> earlier with redhat installation.
>
On a similar setup while running Netscape ? Please
install libc5 and libg++272 found in /oldlibs of the
Debian 'slink' CD.
ragOO, VU2RGU. Kochi, INDIA.
Keeping the Air-Wa
Recent versions of netscape will slow a 16Mb system to a crawl. How does the
system respond when you aren't running netscape? What window manager
are you using? What else are you running at the time. Check you netscape
memory cache size.
I would be wiling to bet the problem lies in the (lack o
Hi,
I recently installed a debian 2.1 on my machine which was earlier running
redhat 5.2. (pentium 100MHz, 16mb ram). The machine becomes very very slow
and unusable when I run netscape. I have dialup connection. The load
average goes 100 and more. I have never seen load averages going above 2
ear
George Bonser wrote:
> Any process involved with heavy net activity in an SMP system with 2.2.3
> will do this. I had problems with web servers doing it. 2.2.9 seems OK.
> 2.2.6/7 were disasters. 2.2.5 seemed to work, though.
Hm, could you expand on that? I've been using 2.2.7 for a while, what
pr
* George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/26/99 18:59] wrote:
> Do a ps -ax and see how many processes you have stuck in D state ;). Then
> go and get 2.2.9
Yup, that explains it! I have 5 sxid processes in D state.
Hmmmcould it have something to do with the fact that I installed
arla 5 days ag
I have a dual-CPU system running potato with kernel 2.2.3.
Here's what top reports:
6:30pm up 36 days, 20:55, 10 users, load average: 5.22, 5.28, 5.17
152 processes: 147 sleeping, 2 running, 2 zombie, 1 stopped
CPU states: 0.4% user, 1.5% system, 0.0% nice, 97.9% idle
Mem: 516688K av, 4802
>From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a system. We run a shell
machine, a dns server,
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Shaleh wrote:
> >From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
> fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
> its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
> dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a sys
>From personal experience this is a tad much for one machine. DNS can
fill up some memory w/ cache and is a constant hit. Really should be
its own 486 or so w/ some memory tossed in. Shell services can be
dangerous, and a user could easily peg out a system.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING
I'm running a Debian 1.3.1 system and find the machine, when put into our
production environment here, after a little while causes the machine's
load to rise, and keep on going. It was so bad it got up to 150+ once. At
any ratI ran top one time and nothing was using any large amount of CPU,
nor was
88 matches
Mail list logo
