[Samba] Could Linux load average problem be related to smbfs?

Keith G. Murphy keithmur at mindspring.com
Thu Feb 27 20:05:38 GMT 2003


%%jrrs wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> 
> [ getting about an 8 load average, with very little actually running. ]
> 
>   this might be wholly inapplicable, but i once had a situation similar
>   to that, where my reported load was much much greater than my perception
>   of what the system was actually *doing*.
> 
>   i had enabled the diskd cache whatnot method of squid, rather than 
>   the normal ufs method.
> 
>   either the squid process itself or one of its child processes was polling
>   something ( i don't believe it was the physical disk, but i don't fancy
>   being quoted on that ) once every second or so.  the poll was only a blip, 
>   but it was enough to keep the load high.
> 
>   so, perhaps if those processes were strobing/polling something, it wouldn't
>   make the system run as busily as the load was telling you?
> 
>   again, that might not be terribly applicable. ?
> 
It might be quite applicable.  One interesting thing is that the load 
was *exactly* at 8 when nothing was really going into R state.  I wish I 
had noted how many of those hung df processes there were.  4 or 8 would 
be interesting numbers!



More information about the samba mailing list