[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