[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [hobbit] CPU LOAD

To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
Subject: Re: [hobbit] CPU LOAD
From: Stef Coene <stef.coene (at) docum.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:56:38 +0100
References: <58EF0861D3A1A04182720B3A5231C7C221925B@usplm205.amer.corp.eds.com>
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

On Wednesday 08 November 2006 22:34, Hubbard, Greg L wrote:
> James,
>
> Not that I know of.  I thought that the Unix "load" number simply
> reflects the run queue length for the system as a whole, which is pretty
> much the same no matter how many CPU's there are.  Or are you willing to
> tolerate larger numbers for systems with fewer CPUs?
20 processes in the run queue is bad on a system with 1 cpu
20 processes in the run queue is no problem for a system with 64 cpu's


Stef

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [hobbit] CPU LOAD
  - From: Hubbard, Greg L

References:
- RE: [hobbit] CPU LOAD
  - From: Hubbard, Greg L

Prev by Date: Re: [hobbit] PageSets & BB-HOSTS
Next by Date: Re: [hobbit] Hobbit patching (from "HTTP Red")
Previous by thread: RE: [hobbit] CPU LOAD
Next by thread: RE: [hobbit] CPU LOAD
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread