Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:55:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:55:38 -0500 Received: from vger.timpanogas.org ([207.109.151.240]:50692 "EHLO vger.timpanogas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:55:34 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0C7BFA.7042E3CD@timpanogas.org> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:51:38 -0700 From: "Jeff V. Merkey" Organization: TRG, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sendmail-bugs@sendmail.org Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachments in /var/spool/mqueue In-Reply-To: <200011102251.eAAMp1I232107@saturn.cs.uml.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [ ... named redacted by request ... ] wrote: > > > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and > > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed) > > > > [... sendmail person ...] > > > >> Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it have a load > >> average of 10 if there are two processes running? Let's check the > >> man page: > >> > >> and the three load averages for the system. The load > >> averages are the average number of process ready to > >> run during the last 1, 5 and 15 minutes. This line > >> is just like the output of uptime(1). > >> > >> So: Linux load average on these systems is broken. > > If that is _our_ man page, it is broken. (well, old) Otherwise, > this is just a case of not mindlessly obeying the BSD "standard". > > Linux 2.4.xx includes some blocked processes in the load average > calculation. This is because the BSD load average calculation > could give a load of 0.0 when the system is severely overloaded > by IO. I think only uninterruptable processes got added in. > > Maybe this isn't the best solution... there could have been > a second load average for IO maybe. > > Feel free to forward this to the sendmail people, to the BSD people > in case they'd like to "standardize" the new calculation, or to the > linux-kernel mailing list for discussion -- w/o my name please. Forwarded at the request of a tier 1 Linux person after redacting their name. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/