3 ms·
The lack of understanding is amazingly widespread. I often have to explain to people that when they look at their CPU utilization and it is at 10% it means "yo
by meshko 14y ago
The lack of understanding is amazingly widespread. I often have to explain to people that when they look at their CPU utilization and it is at 10% it means "you are throwing money way", not "you are efficient".
- masklinn 14y agoThat's not really true though, or at least not on all workloads: much as you are not "throwing money away" by not pegging your car engine in the red zone 100% of the time, you're not throwing money away by not being at 100% CPU all the time, there are other metrics, values and issues to take in account e.g. a pegged CPU but an unresponsive computer is useless for a desktop, a pegged CPU which can't serve requests because the CPU is pegged because it's swapping like mad is useless for a server, so is a server at 100% CPU when there's no load on it which will just keel over when people start trying to actually interact with it.
- jeremyjh 14y agoIt sounds like you missed the point here. If an eight-core server is at 10% utilization, it effective has a single processor nearly pegged and the process doing it is thus CPU bound (and maybe serving responses at a high latency) while you have other cores sitting idle. Conserving CPU resources and running under capacity is wise, but has nothing at all to do with this comment.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoIt really depends why you are at 10%. A file server will probably spend the vast majority of its time waiting on I/O... That's not necessarily a bad thing.