No subject


Wed Jan 4 15:26:26 CST 2012


> I'm wondering if usleep works differently from sleep? Not necessarily
> a busy loop but it doesn't go to sleep to wait for a signal?

The usleep definitely is working, and I'm pretty sure linux turned it
into a non-busyloop ages ago.

The problem isn't that I'm not throttling enough, my current setup has
the load well under control.  It's that I seem to be throttling too
much and not utilizing the system to (near) capacity.

That's why I'm trying to understand why what (top/vmstat) appears to be
a lightly loaded system is giving me a loadavg of 2.

On 2012-01-12 Sean Walberg wrote:
> aware. There's a Ruby gem called Stalker that makes it really easy to
> run a worker daemon that runs the commands you want (bindings in just
> about every language out there, too) Then it's just a matter of
> running the number of worker instances, say one per CPU.

Could look at that later, but I've already done all the work and have a
successful native-code throttler :-)  I'm just trying to tweak now.

Of course, after this is all done, I'll play with optimizing the rest
of my code.  The big goal here (which I think I've been successful at)
is stopping the 40 loadavgs that start dropping connections.

On 2012-01-12 Adam Thompson wrote:
> A) only run as many jobs in parallel as you have cores, and

The box is running a lot of different jobs / types of jobs.  Luckily
most are "batchy" and now have my throttling in them.  However, users
outside our control can start big jobs at will and they need to start
running pretty much immediately ("look, we're doing something!").  So
throttling based on load seems to be the only (best?) solution.

Thanks to all for input!!



More information about the Roundtable mailing list