I have this exact argument at work every so often. People coming in from
an NT environment have difficulty understanding what it is/means and
that it's not neccessarily bad when load gets above 1, etc, etc, etc.
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.
>
> Ralf
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================================================================
-
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/
