From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 25 17:28:01 2009 Return-Path: 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 3DC3F1065676 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.166]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E596C8FC1F for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 17:27:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@boosten.org) Received: from [212.54.42.143] (helo=smtp12.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq3.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M8dxr-0005UH-E8; Mon, 25 May 2009 19:27:55 +0200 Received: from [84.25.72.219] (helo=ra.egypt.nl) by smtp12.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1M8dxq-0004CZ-MS; Mon, 25 May 2009 19:27:54 +0200 Received: from mbp.egypt.nl (mbp.egypt.nl [192.168.13.33]) by ra.egypt.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772533983B; Mon, 25 May 2009 19:27:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: From: Peter Boosten To: Wojciech Puchar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:27:58 +0200 References: <200905241315.n4ODFB96007801@mp.cs.niu.edu> <4A1A58FA.60303@boosten.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1M8dxq-0004CZ-MS X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-2.6, required 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60, SPF_PASS -0.00) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: peter@boosten.org X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Yuri , Scott Bennett , 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:01 -0000 On 25 mei 2009, at 19:12, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> I think Wojciech means '...which is NOT measure of CPU _utilization_' > > exactly what i said. > Regardless from what you said: you _wrote_ CPU _load_, not cpu _utilization_, which are two completely different thingemies. The load averages in top describe the state the entire machine is in, not just the CPU. >> >> 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. I never claimed load average = CPU load! Peter -- http://www.boosten.org