Article View: comp.sys.sequent
Article #825load average
From: Jeff Berkowitz
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1989 23:17
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1989 23:17
26 lines
1455 bytes
1455 bytes
In article <67727@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >There's a reason for that. Dynix divides the load average by the number of >CPUs you have. If uptime(1) displays 1.6, and you have four CPUs, then the >load average is really 6.4. > "really"? :-) Very early in the history of DYNIX, Sequent experimented with both alternative implementations of load average. The existing one was selected because it more accurately described the behavior that users perceived. In addition, some daemons refuse to run if the "load average" is very high. Since customers can also write code that checks this, the computed load average should reflect reality; each processor can simultaneously run a program. How does a four processor 9845 handle load average? I presume from your comment that Pyramid does not divide by the number of processors? Does this mean performance does not scale linearly? -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb Sequent Computer Systems Custom Systems Group
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<15248@sequent.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!sequent!jjbReferences:
<2470@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <67727@pyramid.pyramid.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!tektronix!sequent!jjb From: jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sequent Subject: load average Summary: how to define it? Message-ID: <15248@sequent.UUCP> Date: 27 Apr 89 23:17:56 GMT References: <2470@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <67727@pyramid.pyramid.com> Reply-To: jjb@sequent.UUCP (Jeff Berkowitz) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc Lines: 26