[HPADM] RE: SUMMARY 8420 VPARs running with High load on CPU0 and low load on all other CPUS

From: James J. Perry (jjperry_at_water.com)
Date: 03/21/05

  • Next message: Stephanie Chung: "[HPADM] HP-UX Ports"
    Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:45:12 -0500
    To: <hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl>
    
    

    I wanted to thank Bill Hassel and Ted Fisher for their assistance on
    this issue.

     

    Bill provided some wonderful insight into the noted issue:

     

    Not at all unusual. There are likely dozens of processes performing some

    sort of poll or signal check, then going to sleep for a short time. The

    runqueue (poorly named: load in uptime) is really the number of
    processes

    waiting for a CPU. The queue assigns the first available CPU (probably

    the second one, the process runs then goes to sleep. top and uptime

    are very poor in representing short-lived proceeses. If this were truly
    a

    CPU load, both CPUs would be about equal. but the crude metrics in

    sar and top can't account for processes that last only a few
    milliseconds.

     

    So this has nothing to do with vpars. It's an artifact from short-run
    processes.

    Since the users see no impact, all is well. I've seen 400 polling
    processes

    create runqueues of 40-50 on a 2 processor system with no impact on

    response time.

     

       -Jim

     

    Original Message:

    I have an 8420 with 2 npars. Each npar has 2 vpars.

     

    What I have noticed once I put Oracle Apps on one of the vpars (2 CPU,
    16 GB ram), is that CPU 0 has a load of 20 and CPU 1 has a load of 0-5.
    CPU Utilization is evenly distributed over both CPUs. I have noted the
    same behavior on most of the active vpars in use. Here are "sar -u -M
    5 5" and "sar -q -M 5 5" from one of the vpars.

     

    sar -u -M 5 5

    13:55:22 cpu %usr %sys %wio %idle

    13:55:27 0 41 7 0 51

                   1 45 6 1 49

              system 43 6 1 50

    13:55:32 0 46 4 3 47

                   1 37 13 1 49

              system 42 9 2 48

    13:55:37 0 46 8 0 46

                   1 53 13 0 34

              system 50 10 0 40

    13:55:42 0 45 4 1 51

                   1 39 12 0 49

              system 42 8 0 50

    13:55:47 0 21 6 2 72

                   1 30 5 1 64

              system 25 6 1 68

     

    Average 0 40 6 1 53

    Average 1 41 10 1 49

    Average system 40 8 1 51

     

    sar -q -M 5 5

    14:44:50 cpu runq-sz %runocc swpq-sz %swpocc

    14:44:55 0 8.8 100

                   1 0.0 0

              system 8.8 50 0.0 0

    14:45:00 0 4.0 40

                   1 3.2 80

              system 3.5 60 0.0 0

    14:45:05 0 31.0 20

                   1 5.7 60

              system 12.0 40 0.0 0

    14:45:10 0 8.0 100

                   1 3.5 40

              system 6.7 70 0.0 0

    14:45:15 0 3.7 60

                   1 4.6 100

              system 4.2 80 0.0 0

     

    Average 0 8.4 64

    Average 1 4.3 56

    Average system 6.5 60 0.0 0

     

    This is also see in Top and Glance.

     

    Glance

    ************************************************************************
    ********

     

                                    CPU BY PROCESSOR
    Users= 4

    CPU State Util LoadAvg(1/5/15 min) CSwitch Last Pid

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------

      0 Enable 60.8 18.4/ 18.2/ 18.8 2592 13070

    1 Enable 60.8 3.0/ 2.8/ 3.1 3348 12726

     

     

    Top

    ************************************************************************
    ********

     

    Load averages: 10.35, 10.46, 10.90

    429 processes: 389 sleeping, 39 running, 1 zombie

    Cpu states:

    CPU LOAD USER NICE SYS IDLE BLOCK SWAIT INTR SSYS

     0 17.75 31.7% 0.0% 0.0% 68.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

     1 2.96 47.5% 0.0% 0.0% 52.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

    --- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

    avg 10.35 39.6% 0.0% 0.0% 60.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

     

     

     

    This is really uncharacteristic for any Unix server I have administered.
    I see the CPU utilization about even most of the time, but the CPU 0 has
    a very high run queue. No users are complaining and it seems that all
    of the processes are getting run in a reasonable amount of time. Has
    anyone seen this type of behavior before? Is it related to running in a
    VPAR?

     

       Thanks

       -Jim

    --
                 ---> Please post QUESTIONS and SUMMARIES only!! <---
            To subscribe/unsubscribe to this list, contact majordomo@dutchworks.nl
           Name: hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl     Owner: owner-hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl
     
     Archives:  ftp.dutchworks.nl:/pub/digests/hpux-admin       (FTP, browse only)
                http://www.dutchworks.nl/htbin/hpsysadmin   (Web, browse & search)
    

  • Next message: Stephanie Chung: "[HPADM] HP-UX Ports"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: What do you use?
      ... >> RAID server, though. ... Swap: 4081M Total, 240K Used, 4081M Free ... The CPU usage is lower on the ICP system (remember that it has a slower CPU ... I noticed a drastic reduction of CPU load on the 3ware system when we went ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid (PREVIOUS WAS BROKEN)
      ... The attached patch should work better. ... It is important to distinguish cases with and without CPU load. ... To offer this tunable to make a balance between max. CPU load of kipmid and performance appears to be worthwhile for many users. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Winsock Calls Overhead
      ... There's no such thing as overlapped I/O in Windows CE, ... My guess would be that non-blocking sockets will increase the CPU ... Sending to the local socket should take more CPU. ... the measured CPU load turned out to be pretty much high as ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsce.app.development)
    • Re: [PATCH] limit CPU time spent in kipmid (PREVIOUS WAS BROKEN)
      ... For a message that requires almost no CPU from the management controller, it takes around 5ms per message round-trip and uses about 10% of a CPU. ... With your patch, this puts the driver to sleep for a tick when this happens. ... To offer this tunable to make a balance between max. CPU load of kipmid and performance appears to be worthwhile for many users. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Winsock calls overhead
      ... the measured CPU load turned out to be pretty much high as ... I doubted the NDIS miniport implementation for taking so much of a CPU ... We are using blocking socket calls and our concern is the CPU loading. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsce.platbuilder)

  • Quantcast