Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:00:44 -0400 |
Content-Type: | Text/Plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In <[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] writes:
> > Why can't SOS Identify the program that is doing this?
>
> Unfortunately, the testing I've done so far seems to confirm that the
> Measurement Interface is treated fork'ed process as if they were part of the
> parent. This isn't %100 certain yet, though.
Another interesting note I made a couple months ago; for those of you running
posix web servers on the 3000; we've noticed consistently that when our web
server goes into a cpu-eating loop (as it does quite frequently) - it'll eat
up hundreds of minutes of CPU time (as noted by a :SHOWPROC on the guilty job)
However, upon aborting the job, we note that the "CPU=...CONNECT=" line at
the end of the job's $STDLIST does not reflect any of this CPU time... It
only always reports about 3 minutes of CPU time. So I suspect there are some
deeper issues with some of MPE's internal process accounting/MI stuff that
are not posix aware...
> Jeff Kell posted a some good discussion and questions on this, but the short
> answer is: "probably".
>
> > Also, I have noticed when I use the shell (SH.HPBIN.SYS) to do a simple
> > command like: "tail -f /usr/local/samba/var/log.nmb" It begins to use 80-90
> > percent CPU. I think something is seriously wrong here. I use the tail
> > command on other machines around here (Solaris 2.3) all the time, they don't
> > demand those kind of resources from the machine. Just as in the above
> > scenario, SOS from LUND blames it on the SH.HPBIN.SYS On more thing, I exit
> > out the shell, and enter the following at the MPE command prompt:
> >
> > RUN TAIL.HPBIN.SYS;INFO="-f /usr/local/samba/var/log.nmb"
> >
> > Then once again 80-90 percent of the CPU is being used only this time SOS
> > shows it to be TAIL.HPBIN.SYS
Taking a wild guess here, since tail looks at the last 'n' records of the file
you specify, does it perhaps read down through the whole file to get to the
end? (I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised.) If so, then the longer the
file you 'tail', the more cpu it's gonna eat getting to the end of the file...
-Chris Bartram
______________________/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_
Chris Bartram Sales (US): 800 Net-Mail Fax:+1 703 451-3720
______ +1 703 569-9189 mailto:[log in to unmask]
/__ | \__________ Sales (Europe):+44(1480)414131 Fax:+44(1480)414134
/ / | / ________ Sales (Pacific Rim):+61 3 9489 8216 (same for fax)
| /_ |< ______ Tech Support:+1 703 569-9189 Fax:+1 703 451-3720
\ __)| \ ___ mailto:[log in to unmask] Me: mailto:[log in to unmask]
\______/Associates, 6901 Old Keene Mill Rd Suite 500 Springfield VA 22150
_________________Inc._/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_
Gopher: gopher.3k.com Anon-FTP: ftp.3k.com WWW: http://www.3k.com/
|
|
|