> That's why I asked what kind of Controler the board had on it in a previous
> post to you and stated ram was not the suspect problem. IMO if you keeped
> the dual core proc and just switched to ICH7 Board you would have saved
> money. Your utilization rate would probly stayed the same or no higher than
> %30. Just to keep things in balance you will probly want to try the cfq
> schedular with a high user load so every thing gets it fair share in
> time_wait. Some people will contradict that it's about making the users
> happy. When access time for one user takes longer than another then the
> complaints start coming in. I would like to know the Proc Utilization per
> core or are you running it in Single Core?
top - 11:53:39 up 2 days, 9:47, 1 user, load average: 8.27, 13.66, 29.82
Tasks: 188 total, 1 running, 183 sleeping, 0 stopped, 4 zombie
Cpu0 : 10.6% us, 2.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 87.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Cpu1 : 8.0% us, 2.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 88.3% id, 1.7% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Cpu2 : 11.6% us, 2.0% sy, 0.0% ni, 86.4% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Cpu3 : 6.0% us, 0.7% sy, 0.0% ni, 92.4% id, 1.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 4151316k total, 3438536k used, 712780k free, 428520k buffers
Swap: 2031608k total, 8k used, 2031600k free, 1839452k cached
I do see on occasion CPU load jump up to 30-60% accross the board but
that is rare. Mostly it looks like above.
I will try switching back too CFQ this evening to see what that does
for 24 hours. I suspected it was either the SATA controller or the
scheduler that fixed/helped things. With the quad-core I figure that
at least I will never have to worry about the CPU being a bottle neck.
I still see the load average jump up at peak times to as much as 60
percent but its a rare event now. When I did a grep on a 450Mbyte
file it jumped to 90 earlier.
Matt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
