Another data point -- I''m seeing the same thing on one of my machines with the Fedora 4 1447 RPMs. [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a 12:48:43 up 1 day, 15:42, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1447_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Aug 26 21:13:28 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote:> Another data point -- I''m seeing the same thing on one of my machines with > the Fedora 4 1447 RPMs.Does this also happen with upstream xen-unstable kernels, or only with the Fedora RPMs ? I''ll try to fix this ASAP. -- All Rights Reversed _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: > >> Another data point -- I''m seeing the same thing on one of my machines >> with >> the Fedora 4 1447 RPMs. > > Does this also happen with upstream xen-unstable kernels, > or only with the Fedora RPMs ? > > I''ll try to fix this ASAP. > > -- > All Rights Reversed >Don''t know as I''ve yet to get xen/FC4 working on this machine. I''m going to play with it a bit. When I have a chance, I''ll download it and give it a try. I''ve got the earlier 1398 rpm set installed and working fine, but really struggling with the 1447 rpm set. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote:> Don''t know as I''ve yet to get xen/FC4 working on this machine. I''m going > to play with it a bit. When I have a chance, I''ll download it and give > it a try. > > I''ve got the earlier 1398 rpm set installed and working fine, but really > struggling with the 1447 rpm set.I''ve got new (experimental) RPMs up on my people page: http://people.redhat.com/riel/ -- All Rights Reversed _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Thank you! I''ve been able to install the non-devel RPMs, boot xen, a dom0 and a domU! Yea! Now, I have to figure out how to get the networking in domU working right. Also, it looks like the load average issue is resolved. Thanks again.> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: > >> Don''t know as I''ve yet to get xen/FC4 working on this machine. I''m going >> to play with it a bit. When I have a chance, I''ll download it and give >> it a try. >> >> I''ve got the earlier 1398 rpm set installed and working fine, but really >> struggling with the 1447 rpm set. > > I''ve got new (experimental) RPMs up on my people page: > > http://people.redhat.com/riel/ > > -- > All Rights Reversed >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:52 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: > > > Don''t know as I''ve yet to get xen/FC4 working on this machine. I''m going > > to play with it a bit. When I have a chance, I''ll download it and give > > it a try. > > > > I''ve got the earlier 1398 rpm set installed and working fine, but really > > struggling with the 1447 rpm set. > > I''ve got new (experimental) RPMs up on my people page: > > http://people.redhat.com/riel/ >Wahoo, first rpms I have what so far appears to be stable network interfaces :-) Thanks a bunch, X server still crashes Dom0 but that is also the same with unstable source install as well. Ted _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and domU boot and networking works -- yea! [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a 07:47:13 up 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9 00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote:> Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and > domU boot and networking works -- yea! > > [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a > 07:47:13 up 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 > Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9 > 00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/LinuxI''m also seeing the load average problem on my system. -- All Rights Reversed _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: > > > Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and > > domU boot and networking works -- yea! > > > > [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a > > 07:47:13 up 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 > > Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9 > > 00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > > I''m also seeing the load average problem on my system.Same here. I think the culprit is the kxbwatch kernel thread, which ps shows as being in the "D" (uninterruptible sleep) state most of the time on my system. My understanding of load average computation is that "D" processes count as running (typically, they correspond to a running process blocked on I/O). If this is the case, then the load average of 1.00 should be harmless, though it would be nice to get the xenbus thread to use a normal sleep so it doesn''t skew the load average. --Michael Vrable _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Michael Vrable wrote:> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: >> >> >>> Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and >>> domU boot and networking works -- yea! >>> >>> [root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a >>> 07:47:13 up 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 >>> Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9 >>> 00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux >>> >> I''m also seeing the load average problem on my system. >> > > Same here. I think the culprit is the kxbwatch kernel thread, which ps > shows as being in the "D" (uninterruptible sleep) state most of the time > on my system. My understanding of load average computation is that "D" > processes count as running (typically, they correspond to a running > process blocked on I/O). > > If this is the case, then the load average of 1.00 should be harmless, > though it would be nice to get the xenbus thread to use a normal sleep > so it doesn''t skew the load average. > > --Michael Vrable > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > >Whatever it is, it does not seem to slow the domU''s down. In fact, they seem snappier than they did under the 1398 RPMs. It just makes things tougher for accuracy/monitoring purposes. -- Mike Baysek Systems Analyst Auton Lab, NSH 3123 _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Michael Vrable wrote:> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:43:10AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, master@bradleyland.com wrote: >> >> >>>Spoke too soon on the 1.00 load average. Other than that, both dom0 and >>>domU boot and networking works -- yea! >>> >>>[root@teegeeack ~]# uptime&&uname -a >>> 07:47:13 up 12:40, 2 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 >>>Linux teegeeack.bradleyland.com 2.6.12-1.1454_FC4xen0 #1 SMP Fri Sep 9 >>>00:19:20 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux >> >>I''m also seeing the load average problem on my system. > > > Same here. I think the culprit is the kxbwatch kernel thread, which ps > shows as being in the "D" (uninterruptible sleep) state most of the time > on my system. My understanding of load average computation is that "D" > processes count as running (typically, they correspond to a running > process blocked on I/O). > > If this is the case, then the load average of 1.00 should be harmless, > though it would be nice to get the xenbus thread to use a normal sleep > so it doesn''t skew the load average.One thing is that 1.00 load avarage when idle, but if it''s the kxbwatch, then does it escalate when the systems are actually doing something? If not, it shouldn''t do much harm, right? -- Kind regards, Mogens Valentin _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users