Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> > isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> > it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your daemons start
> > blocking because they assume this number means badness, than that is
> > the problem, not the loadavg in itself.
>
> The problem seems to me that the load figure doesn't express what most
> people seem to expect it to - CPU load.
>
Actually, what most people expect it to represent is schedulability of
new tasks. The problem is more one of:
a) Expecting a fixed relationship between the specific number and the
behaviour of the machine;
b) The long time constants.
On an 8-way machine a load average of 16 is not particularly high, even
if you only count runnable processes, for example.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
