On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:26:08PM +0100, Bartosz Stec wrote:
> Hi list,
> I have a SAMBA server (version 3.5.11) installed over 8.2-STABLE. I
> have just noticed, that top shows USERNAME of all smbd processes as
> root, while systat and ps show user logged to SAMBA.
>
> ps outp
Hi list,
I have a SAMBA server (version 3.5.11) installed over 8.2-STABLE. I have
just noticed, that top shows USERNAME of all smbd processes as root,
while systat and ps show user logged to SAMBA.
ps output of example user:
# ps -a -U foo.bar
PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND
on 28/01/2011 12:37 Bartosz Stec said the following:
> Day 2 after reboot:
> Mem: 100M Active, 415M Inact, 969M Wired, 83M Cache, 199M Buf, 21M Free
> Sum: 1588MB
> 1/4 of total RAM disappeared already.
> Anyone knows what possibly happening here or maybe I should hire some voodoo
> shaman to expel
n. All the memory you
set aside
for ARC should be counted in the 'wired' count, so I'm not sure
why you see
1GB of RAM rather than 2GB.
For what its worth (seems to be the same values top shows), the
sysctl's
I use to make cacti graphs of memory usage are: (Counts are
ver, look at what hw.physmem says (and the realmem and
>>>>>>>>> availmem lines in
>>>>>>>>> dmesg). realmem is actually not that useful as it is not a
>>>>>>>>> count of the
>>>>>>>>
7; count, so I'm not sure
why you see
1GB of RAM rather than 2GB.
For what its worth (seems to be the same values top shows), the
sysctl's
I use to make cacti graphs of memory usage are: (Counts are in pages)
vm.stats.vm.v_page_size
vm.stats.vm.v_wire_count
vm.stats.vm.v_active_
tart: 2147483648
Humm, you should still have 2GB of RAM then. All the memory you set aside
for ARC should be counted in the 'wired' count, so I'm not sure why you see
1GB of RAM rather than 2GB.
For what its worth (seems to be the same values top shows), the sysctl's
I use to
gt;However, look at what hw.physmem says (and the realmem and availmem
> >>>>>lines in
> >>>>>dmesg). realmem is actually not that useful as it is not a count of the
> >>>>>amount of memory, but the address of the highest memory page available.
counted in the 'wired' count, so I'm not sure why you see
1GB of RAM rather than 2GB.
For what its worth (seems to be the same values top shows), the sysctl's
I use to make cacti graphs of memory usage are: (Counts are in pages)
vm.stats.vm.v_page_size
vm.stats.vm.v_wire_c
lable.
> > > > There
> > > > can be less memory available than that due to "holes" in the address
> > > > space for
> > > > PCI memory BARs, etc.
> > > >
> > > OK, here you go:
> > > # s
memory, but the address of the highest memory page available.
> > > There
> > > can be less memory available than that due to "holes" in the address
> > > space for
> > > PCI memory BARs, etc.
> > >
> > OK, here you go:
> > # sysctl
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:20:28 am Bartosz Stec wrote:
> W dniu 2011-01-26 14:06, John Baldwin pisze:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:20:34 am Bartosz Stec wrote:
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> could someone explain me this?
> >>
> >> # sysctl hw.realmem
> >> hw.realmem: 2139029504
> >>
W dniu 2011-01-26 14:06, John Baldwin pisze:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:20:34 am Bartosz Stec wrote:
Guys,
could someone explain me this?
# sysctl hw.realmem
hw.realmem: 2139029504
top line shows:
Mem: 32M Active, 35M Inact, 899M Wired, 8392K Cache, 199M Buf, 58M Free
3
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 7:20:34 am Bartosz Stec wrote:
> Guys,
>
> could someone explain me this?
>
> # sysctl hw.realmem
> hw.realmem: 2139029504
>
> top line shows:
>
> Mem: 32M Active, 35M Inact, 899M Wired, 8392K Cache, 199M Buf, 58M Free
>
> 32+35+899+8+199+58 = 1231MB
Guys,
could someone explain me this?
# sysctl hw.realmem
hw.realmem: 2139029504
top line shows:
Mem: 32M Active, 35M Inact, 899M Wired, 8392K Cache, 199M Buf, 58M Free
32+35+899+8+199+58 = 1231MB
Shouldn't that sum to all available ram? Or maybe I'm reading it wrong?
This machine h
Thomas Hurst wrote:
> I'm seeing this sort of thing too -- I do have swap, but it's not being
> used by these processes (swapoff -a didn't do anything to them):
>
> Mem: 1672M Active, 5337M Inact, 279M Wired, 400M Cache, 215M Buf, 74M Free
> Swap: 10G Total, 12K Used, 10G Free
>
> 1251
* Bill LeFebvre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The <> are only used when the process flag PS_INMEM is clear, which
> is supposed to indicate that the process is or is not "in memory".
> This flag is only ever cleared in swapout, called from swapout_procs.
> My bet is that the processes are being
Ken Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I use 'top' command to check my system, some processes are shown like
> ''. The manual told these processes are swapped out.
Actually it means that they're not mapped into RAM, but in
practice that should be the same.
Just out of cusiosity I grepped th
Ken Chen wrote:
When I use 'top' command to check my system, some processes are shown like
''. The manual told these processes are swapped out.
But my problem is .. I don't have swapping device (swapoff -a). Where are
they swapped to ?
last pid: 29144; load averages: 0.69, 0.67, 0.82
up 19+
When I use 'top' command to check my system, some processes are shown like
''. The manual told these processes are swapped out.
But my problem is .. I don't have swapping device (swapoff -a). Where are
they swapped to ?
last pid: 29144; load averages: 0.69, 0.67, 0.82
up 19+11:25:27 21:05:0
On 8/23/06, Kip Macy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've seen with libthr. What libraries are you using?
-Kip
libthr :)
Jiawei
--
"Without the userland, the kernel is useless."
--inspired by The Tao of Programming
I've seen with libthr. What libraries are you using?
-Kip
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Jiawei Ye wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql is
> > > threaded?
> >
> > You have multiple
On 8/16/06, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql is
> threaded?
You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach
100*ncpus cpu usage.
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am seeing this on
On Thu, 2006-Aug-17 10:57:04 -0400, Bill LeFebvre wrote:
>Dan Nelson wrote:
>>I just built top-3.6 on such a system, though, and it does report a
>>simple "main(){for(;;);}" process as consuming 100 %CPU. Maybe you're
>>thinking of Solaris's own prstat command?
>
>Heh. I released 3.6 with new Sun
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Aug 17), Brent Casavant said:
> > Note that IRIX's top does not bias for availabile CPUs -- I've seen
> > well-threaded programs using in excess of 2400% CPU.
> >
> > What it comes down to is that depending on the nature of the
> > inf
In the last episode (Aug 17), Brent Casavant said:
> Note that IRIX's top does not bias for availabile CPUs -- I've seen
> well-threaded programs using in excess of 2400% CPU.
>
> What it comes down to is that depending on the nature of the
> information you're trying to glean from WCPU, you may w
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Bill LeFebvre wrote:
> > > > You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach
> > > > 100*ncpus cpu usage.
> > > >
> > > Ahh, thats makes sense, thanks.
> >
> > Actually it doesn't. IMO, %CPU should be
On Aug 16, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Bill LeFebvre wrote:
You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically
reach
100*ncpus cpu usage.
Ahh, thats makes sense, thanks.
Actually it doesn't. IMO, %CPU should be biased for all available
cpu, not just a single cpu. In other words, a s
Bill LeFebvre wrote:
O. Hartmann wrote:
I use FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/AMD on an pure 64Bit box/environment, single
CPU Athlon 3500+, and sometimes I can see a 100%+ usage of WCPU in
'xine' or 'transmission'. So this is definitely not related to
multiple CPUs.
WCPU is supposed to be weighted in so
Dan Nelson wrote:
One problem is that method doesn't scale to lots of CPUs. On a Sun
T2000 a non-threaded process consuming all of one CPU would only report
3.12 %CPU in that case (100/32).
I agree. The alternative is having a 10-thread process on such a system
report 1000% cpu utilization,
In the last episode (Aug 17), Bill LeFebvre said:
> Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >Dan Nelson wrote:
> >>>How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql
> >>>is threaded?
> >>You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach
> >>100*ncpus cpu usage.
> >
> >Ahh, th
O. Hartmann wrote:
I use FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE/AMD on an pure 64Bit box/environment, single
CPU Athlon 3500+, and sometimes I can see a 100%+ usage of WCPU in
'xine' or 'transmission'. So this is definitely not related to multiple
CPUs.
WCPU is supposed to be weighted in some way to take swap ti
Mike Jakubik wrote:
Dan Nelson wrote:
How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql
is threaded?
You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach
100*ncpus cpu usage.
Ahh, thats makes sense, thanks.
Actually it doesn't. IMO, %CPU should
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Aug 15), Mike Jakubik said:
35 processes: 7 running, 28 sleeping
CPU states: 58.1% user, 0.0% nice, 38.4% system, 1.1% interrupt, 2.4% idle
Mem: 642M Active, 416M Inact, 125M Wired, 112M Buf, 825M Free
Swap: 4071M Total, 4071M Free
PID USERNAME T
Dan Nelson wrote:
How can mysql use 160%? Is this a reporting bug in top because mysql is
threaded?
You have multiple CPUs, so a threaded process can theoretically reach
100*ncpus cpu usage.
Ahh, thats makes sense, thanks.
___
freebsd-sta
In the last episode (Aug 15), Mike Jakubik said:
> 35 processes: 7 running, 28 sleeping
> CPU states: 58.1% user, 0.0% nice, 38.4% system, 1.1% interrupt, 2.4% idle
> Mem: 642M Active, 416M Inact, 125M Wired, 112M Buf, 825M Free
> Swap: 4071M Total, 4071M Free
>
> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE
last pid: 747; load averages: 2.69, 1.03, 0.58
up 0+01:40:40 10:14:29
35 processes: 7 running, 28 sleeping
CPU states: 58.1% user, 0.0% nice, 38.4% system, 1.1% interrupt, 2.4%
idle
Mem: 642M Active, 416M Inact, 125M Wired, 112M Buf, 825M Free
Swap:
37 matches
Mail list logo
