Mailscanner stopped, sendmail running...

[Denis Beauchemin]

Glenn Steen a écrit :
> On 08/06/06, Muhammad Nauman <nauman at worldcall.net.pk> wrote:
>> my systems TOP states :
>>
>> top - 10:49:49 up 15:30,  4 users,  load average: 1.97, 2.28, 2.89
>> Tasks: 163 total,   3 running, 159 sleeping,   0 stopped,   1 zombie
>> Cpu(s): 12.4% us,  5.2% sy,  0.0% ni, 73.9% id,  8.2% wa,  0.0% hi,  
>> 0.3% si
>> Mem:   2074908k total,  1978684k used,    96224k free,   142460k buffers
>> Swap:  2096472k total,      176k used,  2096296k free,  1159100k cached
>>
>>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>> 21894 root      16   0 59844  54m 3444 R  6.5  2.7   0:00.20 MailScanner
>> 16415 root      15   0 60348  54m 3428 S  0.7  2.7   2:34.72 MailScanner
>> 15394 root      16   0 57872  52m 3428 S  0.3  2.6   2:27.27 MailScanner
>>
>> Its almost utilizing the complete MEM and there are some MailScanners
>> process which are even 2:34 min LONG .
>
> Very relative term there ... "almost"...:-).
> You have approximately 250 MiB available and practiacally no swap
> activity... Looks pretty well-balanced to me. Load seems reasonable,
> especially if you run sendmail.
> The TIME there.... How long ahd the process that took 2:34 been
> running? Assuming close to 4 hours on a fairly busy server, then using
> the CPU for well under 3 minutes total isn't much to write home
> about:-). What I'm saying is that performance measurements without a
> context and with no "baseline" to compare to, is pretty useless;).
>
I agree with you.  I don't see anything wrong with this top excerpt.

Denis

-- 
   _
  °v°   Denis Beauchemin, analyste
 /(_)\  Université de Sherbrooke, S.T.I.
  ^ ^   T: 819.821.8000x2252 F: 819.821.8045


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3226 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20060608/1b65dcc9/smime.bin