Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Path: not-for-mail
From: Ian Holsman <ianh@apache.org>
Newsgroups: server.http.apache.dev
Subject: Re: 2.0.29 high load avg
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 09:43:00 -0800
Organization: Holsman.NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <3C3C8124.7040004@apache.org>
References: <3C3C7ECE.4000005@cnet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: int.holsman.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brian Pane <brian.pane@cnet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20020107

Brian Pane wrote:

> Ian Holsman wrote:
> 
> 
>>I have put a recent test of Apache 2.0.29 up on webperf.
>>
>>http://webperf.org/a2/v29/random_files/ 
>>
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on what phenomenon we're supposed
> to be looking at in these graphs?  At first glance,
> they look just like "normal" results from that benchmark
> environment.  Maybe it's just me, but I can't tell how
> they correlate to the high load average problem.  Or
> is the point to show this test didn't exhibit the load
> problem at all?
> 

the point is I don't see the high load average.


> Thanks,
> --Brian
> 
> 
>