<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: machine load in StoreEver Tape Storage</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008738#M7801</link>
    <description>Hello Dave, &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You're right! It is now in Linux General.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Have a nice day,&lt;BR /&gt;Marcel</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:55:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Marcel Schepers</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-06-26T14:55:41Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>machine load</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008736#M7799</link>
      <description>Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;When I start a backup using star and monitor the machine load using top I see something I do not understand. The load average is 1.00 while the CPU claims 97.6% idle time. I have attached a screenshot. Isn't that strange, a load of 1.00 combined with that much idle time?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;For the record, I am using a HP C35480A on a linux machine (Debian, 2.4.21) using an Adaptec AVA-2904 SCSI card.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:09:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008736#M7799</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marcel Schepers</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-26T13:09:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: machine load</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008737#M7800</link>
      <description>Hi Marcel,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; This post might be more suitable in one of the linux forums. It doesn't sound like a drive issue.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Cheers,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; Dave Dewar</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:48:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008737#M7800</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dave Dewar</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-26T14:48:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: machine load</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008738#M7801</link>
      <description>Hello Dave, &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You're right! It is now in Linux General.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Have a nice day,&lt;BR /&gt;Marcel</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:55:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008738#M7801</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marcel Schepers</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-26T14:55:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: machine load</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008739#M7802</link>
      <description>Load average is simply the number of running or runable processes.  IF you have a process that is in the "runable" state (i.e. not doing much work) then this can indeed happen.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Chances are is that the tape drive is slow in comparision to the process, thus it spends a great deal of time waiting on IO.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have little knowledge of Linux stuff, this is a general UNIX question IMHO&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Tim</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:22:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/storeever-tape-storage/machine-load/m-p/3008739#M7802</guid>
      <dc:creator>Tim D Fulford</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-27T10:22:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

