On May 31, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Francois Pussault > <fpussa...@contactoffice.fr> wrote: >> >> load is not realy a cpu usage %. >> In facts it is sum of many % (cpu real load, memory, buffers, etc...) >> that explain why load can up over 5.0 for each cpu without any crash or freeze >> of the host. >> >> we should consider load as a "host" ressources %... this is not real of course >> but this is more real, than considering it as only cpu use. >> >> > > "The load average numbers give the number of jobs in the run queue averaged > over 1, 5, and 15 minutes...." > > from top(1). >
As was mentioned earlier, no two systems agree on what "load average" is. Making statements about it for a particular system should be based on the code for that system. Some systems count processes "runnable" if only the NFS back-end-storage were available to page in the file. Other systems say it's in a wait state. The former can easily lead to load averages in the 100s (or more) with a a CPU idling at 99% (because everything's waiting on NFS). Some systems don't even agree on what it means to "average". Load Averages generally suck as a metric for system "business". Look at interrupts and CPU time -- they're what matter. If you want to break out CPU beyond "system", "user" and "idle", you can do that, too. Sean
