On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 12:34:06PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Just for those that have been following the benchmarking thread, this
> is exactly the same symptom set that FreeBSD demonstrates when loaded
> by WebBench. The gotcha here is, again, the giant kernel lock.
Rather than trying to
On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 12:34:06PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Just for those that have been following the benchmarking thread, this
> is exactly the same symptom set that FreeBSD demonstrates when loaded
> by WebBench. The gotcha here is, again, the giant kernel lock.
Rather than trying to d
Just for those that have been following the benchmarking thread, this
is exactly the same symptom set that FreeBSD demonstrates when loaded
by WebBench. The gotcha here is, again, the giant kernel lock.
> Greetings,
>
> A machine that I hold very close under my wing has been very contently
>
Just for those that have been following the benchmarking thread, this
is exactly the same symptom set that FreeBSD demonstrates when loaded
by WebBench. The gotcha here is, again, the giant kernel lock.
> Greetings,
>
> A machine that I hold very close under my wing has been very contently
>
Greetings,
A machine that I hold very close under my wing has been very contently
chugging along for the last few months with practically no idle processor.
However, I noticed that the CPUs are spinning a lot of cycles in the
system area.
CPU states: 5.5% user, 0.0% nice, 88.9% system, 4.0%
Greetings,
A machine that I hold very close under my wing has been very contently
chugging along for the last few months with practically no idle processor.
However, I noticed that the CPUs are spinning a lot of cycles in the
system area.
CPU states: 5.5% user, 0.0% nice, 88.9% system, 4.0%
6 matches
Mail list logo