IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Ahhh, cogs click into place.
I would have fallen over if you told me it was at 20.

How the FSCK would you ever get that high doing the compute stuff you are doing... unless they were throwing everything at it at the same time.

I have seen machine with load averages in the 200s and greater performing just fine. It was an application server that scheduled and ran multiple, multiple, multiple servlets (or computelets) per second. It was able to keep up, but you can only execute so many a second.

In any case, these things were the cause of the 200+ load average... The CPUs, Disk I/O, Memory I/O, Memory Cache, Buffering, etc... wasn't even being pegged at 200+ Load Average. So many things to be executed and submitted at a time, some functions submitted 300 joblets (or whatever they called them) at a time.

The only time the app servers were that busy, was during Fall Registration opening and closing. Other than that, it barely rose above 2.

This was an IBM 4 Proc P9XX system doing the work with a Gaggle of Memory and nice disk perf.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New It's helpful to remember just what "load average" means.
Someone told me it was how many scheduled items in the kernel missed their turn in the schedule. Sounds like one of the few times that "load average" is actually highly misleading.

Wade.
Save Fintlewoodlewix
New yea, That is a good analogy...
But I have always described it, Job waiting in Queue during the sample frequency.

Or in other words, Jobs waiting for their turn in the scheduling.

Sort of like Left turn lanes in the USA (Right turn lanes in places that drive on the wrong side of the road).

At busy intersections, left turn lanes typically build up a queue of cars to turn left. Most of the time only 3-5 get through per light. Sometimes takes 5 or 6 light cycles to get through it.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
     Why Apple moved to Intel - (admin) - (18)
         Nice article. Thanks. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Size == Speed - (ChrisR)
         I'm not a programmerbloke, but... - (pwhysall) - (15)
             Obviously you are not a programmer :-P - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                 Re: Obviously you are not a programmer :-P - (pwhysall) - (1)
                     Everything winds up in cache - (ben_tilly)
                 But neither are you, at least not that low a level - (broomberg) - (11)
                     I might surprise you - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                         Latency latency latency - (broomberg) - (2)
                             Note that most macs are single-user systems -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                 No argument -NT - (broomberg)
                     Our perl programmers think that way all the time - (tuberculosis) - (6)
                         Please reread, I changed it - (broomberg) - (5)
                             We have a lot of levels of caching - (tuberculosis) - (4)
                                 Agreed - (broomberg) - (3)
                                     Ahhh, cogs click into place. - (folkert) - (2)
                                         It's helpful to remember just what "load average" means. - (static) - (1)
                                             yea, That is a good analogy... - (folkert)

The key; The whole key; And nothing but the key. So help me Codd.
45 ms