[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] BBWIN cpu
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] BBWIN cpu
- From: "Josh Luthman" <josh (at) imaginenetworksllc.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:10:43 -0400
- References: <10000aa92e665c0eafb431c84e239273 (at) imap> <20080910174210.5c646981 (at) netstation.linuxnetwork.local> <EC70BBBBD43A8B468D2460FE1CFAAA26147F2B4E (at) EX1.nibco.com> <20080910210622.5592ec5a (at) netstation.linuxnetwork.local> <48C83B9E.80706 (at) shadowsoft.com> <961092e10809101447p3b78f067w8662965fcffb8bea (at) mail.gmail.com> <48C8426B.4090905 (at) shadowsoft.com>
My Windows server is next door to unused so 4 load is could be a percentage
or the *nix variant.
I do know that *nix load is NOT a % - this may be the same situation with
the BBWin client.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Jon Boede <jon (at) shadowsoft.com> wrote:
> The BBWIN cpu component reports cpu usage as load... for example, if cpu0
> is 4% and cpu1 is 6% then it reports load=5%, the average of the two.
>
> The thing is, that we've been watching the cpu utilization with the Windows
> tools and it never shows either cpu hitting 100% (more like maybe 70% max)
> even though bbwin frequently goes red, hitting 99 and 100%.
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I am running a 1982 version of the BB client on one Windows box and it is
> reporting load to my $newname4hobbit. Are you comparing load to load or
> CPU% to load?
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> --- Henry Spencer
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Jon Boede <jon (at) shadowsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Anybody else using bbwin (0.11) and seeing that it reports CPU much higher
>> than what Windows says the CPU load is?
>>
>> Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Windows is getting it wrong, but
>> I'm biased. :-)
>>
>
>
>