Re: /proc/loadavg disagrees with top and ps

From: Tim Connors (tconnors+linuxdebianuser1091773398_at_astro.swin.edu.au)
Date: 08/06/04

  • Next message: Ioannou Ioannis: "Re: umask in X different to bash" 
    To: John Summerfield <debian@ComputerDatasafe.com.au>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:26:52 +1000

    John Summerfield <debian@ComputerDatasafe.com.au> said on Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:39:52 +0800:
    > Some years ago I used to boot off a Quantum LPS 170. It had some more
    > stuff on it, probably /tmp.
    >
    > It died and managed to hang a couple of process.
    >
    > I manged to reconfigure the system without taking it down, and the hung
    > processes contributed to a higher-than-normail loadaverage for weeks.
    > Probably until the next power failure.

    I had my web stuff on a friend's computer for a while. They noticed a
    high load after a few weeks, and eventually worked out that updatedb
    was getting stuck on the same directory every night. It had been like
    that for weeks unnoticed (given that it was merely a headless box in
    the corner), and was now sitting at a load of 60 or so (mostly
    updatedb processes, but a few `ls` in the directory of question).

    They sent a notice to everyone that the "computer was experiencing a
    bit of trouble, don't do the following:", and then left it until they
    could get a new drive :) 

    -- 
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
Brown's Theorem (Physics III student, Usyd):
"The only thing that behaves like a billiard 
ball, is a billiard ball"
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Ioannou Ioannis: "Re: umask in X different to bash"