Rapid once deployed too

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:31:05PM -0400, Fairlight wrote:
> There you go.  Seven processes actually running out of 1415 total.  With
> only four of them being clerk or report, that's 228 processes that don't
> really even count towards the any sort of performance benchmark because
> they're not actually doing anything significant.  19 processes aren't even
> "there" at all, having exited already and they're waiting for their parent
> to exit.
> 
> > CPU states: 17.1% idle, 26.5% user, 39.8% system, 16.5% wait,  0.0% sxbrk
> 
> This is less useful to me without a per-cpu breakdown.  However, the idle
> and the wait combined is 33.6%.  That means the system is 1/3 unloaded,
> more or less.  The overall picture is that there is more going on in
> running the system (I don't claim to know what differentiates "system"
> from "user" unless it's either processes run by root vs other users, or
> processes whose immediate parent is init...those are my best two guesses,
> and a -quick- check of the docs for one version of top isn't very clear
> about it at all) than there actually is being run -on- the system, by
> roughly a 6:5 ratio.

FWIW, my client in Tampa is running a dual-HT P4 Dell, and interactive
response on that machine -- with 9 simultaneous Xvnc chains running
full time -- is perfectly reasonable up to loadaverages of about 8 or
so; the highest it's ever gotten (in a runaway) was about 63 before it
went to sleep.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? 
     
     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?