[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] numbers for CPU load less meaningful than runque numbers?
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] numbers for CPU load less meaningful than runque numbers?
- From: Jeff Newman <jeffnewman75 (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:34:09 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=RHHBTC4g+ZWNsSdZTXMBcG0lr7Ez32utfI00e2/tMLiwSTUrwruGRfyDxAkHbNTtJn2QdK7NDlp67Mq7TOVrG0XAg9cHScYF2387eV1xLIHuLSQ9OCIT9o5gg49JkWKxxOAVh5+kHuXavHZa6i3ynjaRhD5czn5A5Gpx3OzfB6o=
- References: <CB298229BFA52D4DBC128778379A7F4F0623DE@automex2.autom.net>
How does it compare to say, sar -P ALL 1 in terms of %idle?
-Jeff
On 1/24/06, Myers, Timothy L. <tmyers (at) autom.net> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone else running AIX 5.3ml3 seeing load numbers coming form uptime, to
> be less useful than the mpstat runque numbers?
>
> *mpstat reports -***
>
>
> cpu min maj mpc int cs ics rq mig lpa
> sysc us sy wa id pc
> 0 275 1 0 160 7069 2986 0 13277 100.0 12950
> 17.9 9.6 3.9 68.6 0.51
> 1 16 0 0 165 7986 3601 1 11905 100.0 9791
> 17.6 8.7 2.5 71.3 0.49
> 2 179 1 0 163 8064 4211 0 11460 100.0 11374
> 16.3 9.0 2.7 72.0 0.49
> 3 132 2 0 319 9523 4963 0 14572 100.0 9470
> 18.1 9.5 3.0 69.4 0.51
> ALL 602 4 0 807 32642 15761 1 51214 100.0 43585
> 17.5 9.2 3.0 70.3 2.00
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 0 251 4 0 160 6926 2864 0 12986 100.0 11030
> 17.6 9.0 3.0 70.4 0.49
> 1 45 1 0 159 8211 3864 0 11921 100.0 13722
> 19.0 9.0 4.1 67.9 0.50
> 2 166 3 0 155 8425 4490 0 11967 100.0 10509
> 16.3 8.3 2.6 72.9 0.49
> 3 100 0 0 310 9537 4970 0 14084 100.0 10018
> 18.5 8.8 3.6 69.2 0.51
> ALL 562 8 0 784 33099 16188 0 50958 100.0 45279
> 17.9 8.7 3.3 70.1 1.99
>
> *uptime reports -*
>
> 09:06AM up 2 days, 14:51, 56 users, load average: 41.50, 34.30,
> 29.37
>
> I am not seeing any of the slowness I would expect from this kind of load
> so I have spent the last couple of days with snapshots trying to figure it
> out just what is going wrong.
>
> I don't know but I suspect that the problems with the utmp and wtmp files
> are causing finger issues
>
> The performance and processes are much more in line with mpstat run queue
> numbers than with uptime run able process numbers.
>
> *Timothy L Myers*
> *Senior Developer*
>
> *Autom *
> 5226 South 31st Place
> Phoenix AZ 85040
>
>
>