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 by it. Normal load ave
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
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,
"Jordi S. Bunster" wrote:
> We JUST installed the server. I mean, there's nothing hand
> compiled, except for Amavis. But it doesn't eat that much CPU
amavis is VERY cpu intensive i run it on many systems. is there a lot
of mail going through the system? is there a lot of big attachments?
one of
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
hi ya jordi
you have a run away process and/or a memory leak
( amd and intel cpu behave slightly differently for
( the same code...
what apps is running???
top -i
ps axuw
c ya
alvin
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster wrote:
>
> Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a D
what is running on it? have you checked top for processes?
--
Forrest English
http://truffula.net
"When we have nothing left to give
There will be no reason for us to live
But when we have nothing left to lose
You will have nothing left to use"
-Fugazi
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Jordi S. Bunster
Just a question: Is there any reason in particular for a Debian
Box keep its load average always over 6?
It is a AMD Athlon 750 Mhz with 256 Megs of RAM, running potato
and 2.2.19, compiled to run on i686. It has the Patches Debian
puts on the stock kernel, and the new-style raid patches,
althoug
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
