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/ mhaque@haque.net
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/ batmanppc@themes.org ===================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST