monit-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: FYI - release plan


From: Jan-Henrik Haukeland
Subject: RE: FYI - release plan
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:46:07 +0100

> >Mmmh, the CPU load is the cpu load of the process and all it's child
> >processes.  Of course one process it self can't go beyond 100% but
> >with all it's children it can go up to number_of_cpu*load.
> >
> >My idea of 100% _CPU_ load is, one process occupies one _CPU_
> >completely.  So if a process and a child does take each a full CPU I
> >would see it as 200% _CPU_ load -> If the system has two CPUs in
> >total that would make 100% _SYSTEM_ load.
> >
> >Why do I want this... I don't want to find out how many processors a
> >system has.  Linux would be easy.  But the first difficulty it
> >Solaris... last and definitely least FreeBSD.
> >
> >Compromise solution: set numcpus = [n]
> >If omitted numcpus is 1.  What do you think.
> >
> >Grrr... I just have looked into Google "sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN)"
> >gives me the number of CPUs which are online.  For Solaris it should
> >work, for Linux it might, for FreeBSD I don't know. (-:
> >
> >Do you want always 100% as max?
> >
> I think that we maybe should take 100% as max. value for "system
> resources" even if the machine has more CPU's and processes/threads
> utilizes more than one CPU - utilities such as 'top', 'prstat', etc.
> does it too. "numcpus=n" will be the realy simplest method, but i
> preffer more transparent behavior (not extend monit's dictionary by
> similar helpers). What think the others about it?

I agree with Martin on this one. It's more logical to use 100% as max value.
Also, using a system call, if possible, to get the number of cpu's, seems to
me, to be cleaner, nicer and more professional :-)

Just my 2 euro cents

Jan-Henrik





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]