Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:50:50 +0000 From: void <float@firedrake.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "iowait" CPU state Message-ID: <20001109175050.C21468@firedrake.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpu29jx1b9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 04:13:30PM %2B0100 References: <20001107054413.A1983@firedrake.org> <xzpu29jx1b9.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 04:13:30PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > void <float@firedrake.org> writes: > > I've been using Solaris a lot lately, and I've noticed that in e.g. > > top's output, it has a distinct CPU state called "iowait", which seems > > to be a pretty good indicator of how I/O-bound a system is. Is there > > any reason that FreeBSD doesn't have such a state? > > It has several, depending on the type of I/O the process is waiting > for: biord (waiting for a read operation to complete), biowr (waiting > for a write operation to complete), select (waiting for descriptors to > become readable / writable), etc. Is there any reason top couldn't add these up and report a %iowait like Solaris'? -- Ben 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001109175050.C21468>