4 ms·

CPU Utilization is Wrong (2017)

• kvemkon 1y ago
  Related recent discussion: "%CPU utilization is a lie". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110688
  • dang 1y ago
    Thanks! I was just coming here to mention that. Macroexpanded: %CPU utilization is a lie - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110688 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45110688 - Sept 2025 (162 comments) Also these past discussions of the OP: CPU Utilization Is Wrong (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36580006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36580006 - July 2023 (57 comments) CPU Utilization Is Wrong - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23827032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23827032 - July 2020 (1 comment) CPU Utilization is Wrong - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14301739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14301739 - May 2017 (91 comments)
• dvh 1y ago
  I always understood it "how many CPU cores would I need so that they all run at 100%" E.g. if I have 1 core and utilization is 3 then if I had 3 cores they would run exactly at 100%
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • zamadatix 1y ago
    The problem (or really, nuance) comes when you try to define what "run exactly at 100%" means.
    • adityaathalye 1y ago
      Yeah, I love the expression the "Flaw of the Averages". Depends on what you're counting, among other things. (Not to mention when you took the samples being averaged).