From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 25 17:13:10 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513A51065672
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 25 May 2009 17:13:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
	[IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849228FC2F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 25 May 2009 17:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4PHCmAe040051;
	Mon, 25 May 2009 19:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id
	n4PHClfu040048; Mon, 25 May 2009 19:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Peter Boosten <peter@boosten.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251912000.40022@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <200905241315.n4ODFB96007801@mp.cs.niu.edu>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.0905242021440.33060@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<b79ecaef0905250104p55c302cdh102202d1a06a389b@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251013500.36458@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<b79ecaef0905250133n5cd641dv6ca8e088f8fa2f33@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Scott Bennett <bennett@cs.niu.edu>,
	freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com
Subject: Re: How can this 'top' command output make sense? Load over 7 and 
 total CPU use ~5%
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:13:10 -0000

> I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_'

exactly what i said.

>
> In that case he's correct: whenever the CPU has to wait a lot for I/O,
> like network and disk, then the _load_ will go up, while the CPU
> _utilization_ stays low.

and that's inconsistent with explanation that load average is measure of 
CPU load.

it's not.