Author ammar2
Recipients ammar2, giampaolo.rodola, jkloth, paul.moore, steve.dower, tim.golden, vstinner, zach.ware
Date 2018-07-16.09:36:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1531733803.29.0.56676864532.issue34060@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I don't think taking instantaneous values instead of averaging will work out too well. For reference I've attached a screenshot. It has sampled values at every second on an unloaded computer and then with running prime95 for cpu stress testing. The load tends to peak and fall.

>Is it exactly the same thing on Unix (load average)?

Indeed it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(computing)#Unix-style_load_calculation

"An idle computer has a load number of 0 (the idle process isn't counted). Each process using or waiting for CPU (the ready queue or run queue) increments the load number by 1."

From what I can tell, the number of processors are dealt with the same way as on Linux, that is, a single core processor is overloaded when the load is >1 and a quad core processor is overloaded when the load is >4
History
Date User Action Args
2018-07-16 09:36:43ammar2setrecipients: + ammar2, paul.moore, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, tim.golden, jkloth, zach.ware, steve.dower
2018-07-16 09:36:43ammar2setmessageid: <1531733803.29.0.56676864532.issue34060@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-07-16 09:36:43ammar2linkissue34060 messages
2018-07-16 09:36:43ammar2create