On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 10:44 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> >> real 6m28.496s >> user 0m3.070s >> sys 0m0.559s >> [rodd@localhost database]$ > >One thing for certain, that doesn't look normal. Your test shows that the >process took only roughly 3.6 seconds of CPU time. So it didn't compute a >lot. Under normal circumstances, it would have terminated after less than >four seconds. But possible it was interrupted very often or spent a lot of >time waiting for I/O or locks. Processes which sleep often (I doubt RPM >does that) would also increase the "real" execution time. Was your machine >very busy when you ran this test? Not that I'm aware of. This isn't the first time I've seen this. It's been quite prevalent over the last few weeks(???). I'm a little slack with anything that's obvious because I figure (and rightly so most of the time) that the developer knows and that they are doing something about it. If it's not addressed quickly, then I file a bug report (after finding out if I'm a nut or not.) I wasn't doing anything on the box at the time (no builds, no flash movies, nothing I'm aware of). the CPU indicator didn't suggest anything was happening at the time (it was notably quite, which surprised me I must admit) Oh, and after setting the process running I went and got my 5 month old out of the bath and dressed him for bed, so apart from a quick glance at the screen, I wasn't doing any active work on the machine at the time. Rodd