(SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

Google · 2010-09-13 18:11:52

03:16:41 up 8:29, 1 user, load average: 0.46, 0.35, 0.28

I get much lower numbers on my laptop. I am curious to know more about load averages, what is good, what is bad, what can we do about it?

Last edited by Google (2010-09-14 16:34:50)

fsckd · 2010-09-13 18:18:00

They're fine.

fsckd's notes wrote:

According to <http://immike.net/blog/2007/07/27/what- … d-average/>
The load average is calculated as an exponential moving average of the load
number (the number of processes that are running or runnable). The three
numbers returned as the system's load average represent the one, five, and
fifteen minute moving load average of the system.
So, for a single processor machine a load average of 1 means that, on average,
there is always a process in the running or runnable state. Thus, the CPU is
being utilized 100% of the time and is at capacity. If you tried to run another
process, it would have to wait in the run queue before being executed. For
multiprocessor systems, however, the system isn't CPU bound until the load
average equals the number of processors (or cores, for multi-core processors)
in the machine. My database server, for example, has two dual core processors.
Thus, the system isn't fully utilized until the load average reaches 4.
In summary, the load average is a moving average of the number of processes in
the running or runnable states. You shouldn't be worried about your system's
load unless it is consistently higher than the number of processors (or cores)
in your machine. In general, you can calculate a system's CPU utilization by
dividing the load average by the number of processors/cores in the system.

The origin of the quoted text no longer exists. Use Google, err, yourself if you want details.

Google · 2010-09-13 18:21:47

Thanks, I guess on a dual core system I am not using a whole lot of my CPU's potential. My laptop is a single core (atom) with some incredibly low load averages. I will have to dig around and find out more about this. Interesting considering I have been reading Operating Systems Concepts chapter 8-9 which deals a lot with CPU/I/O/Memory utilization.

karol · 2010-09-13 18:23:24

Depends what you do. If you idle and still get such load, it may be a case of https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=103346
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(computing)

Last edited by karol (2010-09-13 18:23:39)

Google · 2010-09-13 18:28:48

I do run a very minimal system with a lot of idling.

               +                OS: Arch Linux i686
               #                Hostname: ArchLinux
              ###               Kernel: 2.6.35-ARCH
             #####              Uptime: 8:44
             ######             Window Manager: DWM
            ; #####;            Packages: 456
           +##.#####            RAM: 317 MB / 3026 MB
          +##########           CPU: Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5300 @ 2.60GHz
         #############;         Shell: Bash
        ###############+        Terminal: Rxvt-256color
       #######   #######        Root FS: 2.1G / 24G (ext4)
     .######;     ;###;`".      Var FS: 85M / 7.6G (reiserfs)
    .#######;     ;#####.       Tmp FS: 33M / 2.0G (reiserfs)
    #########.   .########`     Home FS: 3.2G / 69G (ext4)
   ######'           '######    
  ;####                 ####;   
  ##'                     '##   
 #'                         `#

Most of my memory is being used by Chromium, which has a few tabs open most of the time. I pretty much have email, and a few sites open but rarely streaming stuff. I do have various instances of urxvt open (maybe 5 at a time). I usually run rtorrent but it has minimal activity on it, and I sometimes run ncmpcpp, and I may have htop open and a pdf or two, and finally a few instances of Ranger file manager.

It seems like a rather high load for what I do. That pretty much constitutes 90% of my computing.

At this moment I am using 317mb RAM, usually it's downwards of 120-150.

skunktrader · 2010-09-13 18:35:39

please delete because of crosspost

Last edited by skunktrader (2010-09-13 18:39:41)

codycarey · 2010-09-13 18:36:48

I always knew Google was sentient. You may also be interested in reading up on the completely fair scheduler implemented by the Linux kernel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler . Robert Love writes the Linux Kernel Development books and his 3rd edition was published not too long ago so it's very likely that your local Borders, B&N, etc. have it in stock. It has a chapter dedicated to process scheduling and more references to it though-out the book. Even if you have zero plans to do kernel development it's still an excellent read to give you insight into how and why things in the kernel work the way they do.

karol · 2010-09-13 18:37:33

System load and used RAM are two different things. CPU usage is yet another different thing.

Boot your computer but don't run chromium and leave it idling for ten minutes. It should more-or-less flatline wrt to system load.

Google · 2010-09-13 18:47:15

I just thought the RAM was higher than usual, I didn't think it affected the load average. I just think it is out of place and wanted to mention it.

On my next reboot I will try to get a read with no chromium.

fsckd · 2010-09-13 18:49:05

karol wrote:

Depends what you do.

Indeed.

> uptime
14:43:16 up 4:12, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.08, 0.25
> uptime
14:44:05 up 4:13, 0 users, load average: 0.62, 0.24, 0.29

karol · 2010-09-13 18:51:15

$ uptime
 20:54:30 up  6:41,  1 user,  load average: 0.17, 0.14, 0.10

$ pstree
init─┬─acpid
     ├─2*[agetty]
     ├─atd
     ├─crond
     ├─dbus-daemon
     ├─dhcpcd
     ├─gpm
     ├─hald─┬─hald-runner─┬─hald-addon-acpi
     │      │             ├─hald-addon-inpu
     │      │             └─2*[hald-addon-stor]
     │      └─{hald}
     ├─login───dash───startx───xinit─┬─.xinitrc───dwm───firefox─┬─plugin-contain+
     │                               │                          └─14*[{firefox}]
     │                               └─X
     ├─sadc
     ├─syslog-ng───syslog-ng
     ├─udevd───2*[udevd]
     ├─urxvtd─┬─2*[dash───bash]
     │        ├─dash
     │        ├─dash───pstree
     │        ├─dash───alsamixer
     │        ├─dash───htop
     │        └─dash───vim
     └─vnstatd

I have Pentium 4, 2 GHz, 1 GB RAM. Those are my usual apps and load.

Google · 2010-09-13 18:54:13

Just for fun, I will post mine. I closed a lot of my terminals that I had going and a few rangers and htop. I wanted to see how it affected the load.

[XXX@ArchLinux ~]$ uptime
 03:59:04 up  9:12,  1 user,  load average: 0.36, 0.32, 0.28
[XXXX@ArchLinux ~]$ pstree
init─┬─5*[agetty]
     ├─chromium───3*[chromium───{chromium}]
     ├─crond
     ├─3*[dbus-daemon]
     ├─2*[dbus-launch]
     ├─dhcpcd
     ├─login───bash───xinit─┬─X
     │                      └─dwm─┬─chromium─┬─chromium
     │                            │          ├─chromium───4*[{chromium}]
     │                            │          ├─chromium───{chromium}
     │                            │          └─15*[{chromium}]
     │                            ├─sh───sleep
     │                            └─urxvt───bash───pstree
     ├─2*[mount.ntfs-3g]
     ├─mpd───3*[{mpd}]
     ├─syslog-ng───syslog-ng
     └─udevd───2*[udevd]

edit:

Why is there a 15* chromium?

Last edited by Google (2010-09-13 18:58:00)

fsckd · 2010-09-13 19:08:39

15 threads obviously

my point was, it can jump up and down during normal usage; this makes it ideal for a drinking game

codycarey · 2010-09-13 19:08:57

That means there are 15 instances of that particular chromium branch running. The curly braces indicate that those are child threads.

karol · 2010-09-13 19:13:27

fsckd wrote:

15 threads obviously
my point was, it can jump up and down during normal usage; this makes it ideal for a drinking game

If you max out your cpu for a minute, the first number will change dramatically (1 minute avg), but it has limited impact on the other two. Your 15 min avg didn't change that much.
Again, it boils down to what and how you work.

codycarey · 2010-09-13 19:54:18

karol wrote:

Depends what you do. If you idle and still get such load, it may be a case of https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=103346
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(computing)

andrews just posted an update to https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 15#p825615 with a possible solution Google can try.

Google · 2010-09-14 06:38:27

Sounds promising, where do I switch "nohz=off?"

Last edited by Google (2010-09-14 06:39:02)

karol · 2010-09-14 09:14:25

Google wrote:

Sounds promising, where do I switch "nohz=off?"

At the kernel line in grub?

Last edited by karol (2010-09-14 09:14:44)

Google · 2010-09-14 16:33:31

All I can say is, wow! What a difference!

[XXXXX@ArchLinux ~]$ uptime
 00:54:25 up  3:01,  1 user,  load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.05
[XXXXX@ArchLinux ~]$ pstree
init─┬─5*[agetty]
     ├─chromium───7*[chromium───{chromium}]
     ├─crond
     ├─2*[dbus-daemon]
     ├─dbus-launch
     ├─dhcpcd
     ├─login───bash───xinit─┬─X
     │                      └─dwm─┬─chromium─┬─chromium
     │                            │          ├─chromium───4*[{chromium}]
     │                            │          └─25*[{chromium}]
     │                            ├─sh───sleep
     │                            ├─2*[urxvt───bash───ranger]
     │                            ├─urxvt───bash───ncmpcpp
     │                            ├─urxvt───bash───rtorrent
     │                            ├─urxvt───bash───htop
     │                            ├─urxvt───bash───pstree
     │                            └─urxvt───bash───vim
     ├─2*[mount.ntfs-3g]
     ├─mpd───2*[{mpd}]
     ├─syslog-ng───syslog-ng
     └─udevd───2*[udevd]

Last edited by Google (2010-09-14 16:34:01)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-09-13 18:11:52

(SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#2 2010-09-13 18:18:00

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#3 2010-09-13 18:21:47

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#4 2010-09-13 18:23:24

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#5 2010-09-13 18:28:48

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#6 2010-09-13 18:35:39

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#7 2010-09-13 18:36:48

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#8 2010-09-13 18:37:33

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#9 2010-09-13 18:47:15

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#10 2010-09-13 18:49:05

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#11 2010-09-13 18:51:15

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#12 2010-09-13 18:54:13

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#13 2010-09-13 19:08:39

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#14 2010-09-13 19:08:57

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#15 2010-09-13 19:13:27

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#16 2010-09-13 19:54:18

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#17 2010-09-14 06:38:27

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#18 2010-09-14 09:14:25

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

#19 2010-09-14 16:33:31

Re: (SOLVED!! Finally!)Is my load average too high? Yes-!

Board footer