[opensuse] How can I use 1705% of the cpu?!
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+. How can I be using ~1,705% of the cpu? The mind boggles...... BC -- Aspire to inspire before you expire. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
Basil Chupin wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0.
As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened.
I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left.
But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu.
Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+.
How can I be using ~1,705% of the cpu?
Accountancy error? In top, when you enable threads (H), the numbers will also initially look very unusual. 9999% etc. On the second/third display they will usually have stabilized. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (-7.8°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 09/02/12 17:35, Per Jessen wrote:
Basil Chupin wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0.
As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened.
I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left.
But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu.
Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+.
How can I be using ~1,705% of the cpu? Accountancy error? In top, when you enable threads (H), the numbers will also initially look very unusual. 9999% etc. On the second/third display they will usually have stabilized.
I wish....I watched this for a few minutes. Well over 1000% with the above as one of the max figure I happened to catch. BC -- Aspire to inspire before you expire. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+.
Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric that actually has a practical meaning. -- System & Network Administrator [ LPI & NCLA ] <http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com> OpenGroupware Developer <http://www.opengroupware.us> Adam Tauno Williams -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 10/02/12 03:21, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+. Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote: that actually has a practical meaning.
Which then makes one wonder why somebody would waste their time in writing a program which gives meaningless crap. And thanks for your response - it only confirms my thought that you cannot trust nuthin' or no-one any more in this world :-) . BC -- Aspire to inspire before you expire. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 2/10/2012 1:44 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 10/02/12 03:21, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+. Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote: that actually has a practical meaning.
Which then makes one wonder why somebody would waste their time in writing a program which gives meaningless crap.
And thanks for your response - it only confirms my thought that you cannot trust nuthin' or no-one any more in this world :-) .
BC
Relative values are only meaningless when there is only one of them. IE, the very first second of output before the first refresh/update, and only the very first time you ever run it. Every one after that is meaningful. It's amusing that you are so mystified by something so common and ordinary considering how strong your opinions are on occasion. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 10/02/12 18:12, Brian K. White wrote:
On 2/10/2012 1:44 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 10/02/12 03:21, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+. Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote: that actually has a practical meaning.
Which then makes one wonder why somebody would waste their time in writing a program which gives meaningless crap.
And thanks for your response - it only confirms my thought that you cannot trust nuthin' or no-one any more in this world :-) .
BC
Relative values are only meaningless when there is only one of them. IE, the very first second of output before the first refresh/update, and only the very first time you ever run it. Every one after that is meaningful.
Is that right? Golly. I ran it again tonight and refreshed the sheebang several times - and this time I even got a figure as big as 10,314% of cpu.
It's amusing that you are so mystified by something so common and ordinary considering how strong your opinions are on occasion.
I adore being mystified especially when the results keep going up and up each time :-) . BC -- Aspire to inspire before you expire. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:14:44 Basil Chupin wrote:
On 10/02/12 03:21, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+.
Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric that actually has a practical meaning.
Which then makes one wonder why somebody would waste their time in writing a program which gives meaningless crap.
Sorry, I'm actually replying to Adam but I had deleted that mail before I got to this point. Load average is no more useful for determining actual CPU load than % CPU Load. Why? Because the load average is simply a count of the average number of processes in the wait queue of the last minute, 5 minutes and 15 minutes (hence the 3 numbers). The problem is that this does not acutally reflect how many processes are actually waiting because process in "uninterruptible sleep" are counted as well. I only found this out in the last week because I was trying to figure out how my load average could be constantly sitting around or just over 2 when the system was sitting there otherwise idle. Sure enough, there are 2 processess in an uninterruptible sleep state. You can't terminate processes in this state either - the only way to get rid of them is to reboot the machine. Since I usually only do that after a) a power failure, b) going away for a holiday or c) after a kernel update, I guess the load average will be sitting around 2 for a fair while yet. At least now I know why. :-) -- =================================================== Rodney Baker VK5ZTV rodney.baker@iinet.net.au =================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 11:48 +1030, Rodney Baker wrote:
On 10/02/12 03:21, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I thought that I would be really smart earlier today and decided (which I have never done before) to open an RSS feed in "All Tabs" in Firefox 10.0. As a result there were something like 250+ tabs opened. I then ran the System Monitor to see how much RAM I was using. 1.4GB. OK. No hassles. 2.6GB left. But then I looked at the cpu usage. It showed that I was using around 1,705% of cpu. Repeat, 1,705% of cpu. Now, I ask you, this is an AMD 32-bit, single core, AMD Athlon XP 3200+. Because the number doesn't really mean what you are assuming it means. It is just a metric, useful in relation to itself, higher just means higher, lower means lower, other than that it doesn't actually mean much of anything [it certainly doesn't mean what percentage of your CPUs registers are in use, transistors in use, or "capacity" (whatever that means) is in use]. %-of-CPU is actually a pretty crappy metric. If you are interested in system load pay attention to load-average, a metric
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:36 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote: that actually has a practical meaning. Which then makes one wonder why somebody would waste their time in writing a program which gives meaningless crap. Sorry, I'm actually replying to Adam but I had deleted that mail before I got to this point. Load average is no more useful for determining actual CPU load
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:14:44 Basil Chupin wrote: than % CPU Load. Why?
Because of exactly what I said - "CPU load" doesn't actually define a value the necessarily means anything. You can be on a host with 99% CPU load where the applications are responsive and you can be on a host with <1% CPU load that is panting like an overheated dog. As a value it can also jump about crazily, up and down, so unless you are looking at a graph you have no idea if the value is representative of a "normal" state.
Because the load average is simply a count of the average number of processes in the wait queue of the last minute, 5 minutes and 15 minutes (hence the 3 numbers).
Simply because the load average is an over-time value it is more useful. Relative values are only meaningful in relation to themselves and load average always gives you three. CPU utilization gives you one. Also load average is influenced by the performance of the I/O subsystem - which in real-life is where more performance constraints come from than from CPU or CPU+Memory-Throughput It is also clearly documented what load average is measuring. CPU % is not.
The problem is that this does not acutally reflect how many processes are actually waiting because process in "uninterruptible sleep" are counted as well.
Yep. I didn't say Load Average was perfect. Just that if you want a benchmark to stare at it is dramatically better than CPU Utilization %.
I only found this out in the last week because I was trying to figure out how my load average could be constantly sitting around or just over 2 when the system was sitting there otherwise idle.
See - it told you something useful! :)
Sure enough, there are 2 processess in an uninterruptible sleep state. You can't terminate processes in this state either - the only way to get rid of them is to reboot the machine.
This isn't true. You can usually identify why they are sleeping and typically resetting or destroying that resource will allow the process to abend or continue.
Since I usually only do that after a) a power failure, b) going away for a holiday or c) after a kernel update, I guess the load average will be sitting around 2 for a fair while yet. At least now I know why. :-)
-- System & Network Administrator [ LPI & NCLA ] <http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com> OpenGroupware Developer <http://www.opengroupware.us> Adam Tauno Williams -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
Basil Chupin -
Brian K. White -
Per Jessen -
Rodney Baker