Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps
From: Reid Priedhorsky (reid_at_reidster.net)
Date: 08/06/04
- Previous message: Joey Hess: "Re: [Rant] The Endless Search for a Mail Client That Doesn't Suck"
- In reply to: Paul Gear: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Next in thread: Tim Connors: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Reply: Tim Connors: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Reply: Paul Gear: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:13:42 -0500 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:10:08 +0200, Paul Gear wrote:
>
> Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> /proc/loadavg currently reports the following:
>>
>> 0.96 0.98 0.78 1/116 23994
>>
>> xload also reports roughly the same.
>>
>> But top and ps both report a nearly idle system (98% idle). What is going
>> on? How can I find out what is causing my system to be so busy?
>
> I've seen load averages of 14 and 16 when the CPU usage was on 10%. The
> two are usually, but not necessarily, related. There are certain types
> of work where this behaviour will be seen. Even low amounts of I/O to a
> slow device, if done by enough processes could cause this.
Hmm. So, the general consensus is that it's not a problem; and it
certainly doesn't seem to affect interactivity or performance at all. It's
my home box, not a server or anything, and it normally has very low loads,
10-15% maybe when I'm using it and essentially zero when I'm not. There
shouldn't be lots of processes doing I/O.
The high load dropped back to normal shortly after I posted.
I'm still interested in tools that would tell me what processes are doing
I/O, or whatever. It's unnerving for things to being going on with my box
that I don't understand.
Thanks, everyone.
Reid
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Joey Hess: "Re: [Rant] The Endless Search for a Mail Client That Doesn't Suck"
- In reply to: Paul Gear: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Next in thread: Tim Connors: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Reply: Tim Connors: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Reply: Paul Gear: "Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]