I've a suggestion..
why not set up the new kernel on an identical machine and
mirror the old baox with all the current data.
if it fails, its a simple matter to put the other box back on the circuit
with only minimal time lost.
On Fri, 16 February 2001, Bill Warner wrote:
>
> A little nervous about running a 2.4 on this server it is our
> money maker and runs direct sales for a big computer manufacturer
> that you have all heard off (client confidentiality or I would say)
> If this thing has down time it costs severalhundred sales a minute.
> 2.2.x just has that tried and true warm fuzzy with it while 2.4
> still has that new car smell. I cant find anyone that is running
> a server with this many telnet sessions at thes ame time to even
> compare notes with. Even web servers and database servers dont
> have this same kind of load.
>
> Thanks for the sugestin though
>
> Bill W
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:25:37PM -0700, Brian Cluff wrote:
> > You might want to try running a 2.4 kernel if you aren't already. It's
> > supposed to take care problems like you are describing, and you'll get a lot
> > better bang for your buck from the CPU's.
> > Just be care if you are running Reiser on RAID, there are some curruption
> > problems with that setup... otherwise.. good stuff!
> >
> > Brian Cluff
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 5:23pm up 2:15, 191 users, load average: 11.46, 11.16, 14.25
> > > 872 processes: 858 sleeping, 14 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
> > > CPU0 states: 18.3% user, 81.5% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > CPU1 states: 17.0% user, 83.0% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > CPU2 states: 18.7% user, 81.1% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > CPU3 states: 17.1% user, 82.7% system, 0.0% nice, 0.0% idle
> > > Mem: 3954672K av, 2090204K used, 1864468K free, 573700K shrd, 331720K
> > > buff
> > > Swap: 1056092K av, 1684K used, 1054408K free 1453604K
> > > cached
> > >
> > > this quad system constantly has 80% useage on all 4 procs??? is this
> > > normal???
> > >
> > > We hit 650 users today and had to reboot. Not good. The system was
> > > still
> > > running but the load was so high that it would not move. There seem to
> > > be atleast
> > > 2-3 process left hanging after someone logs out. usually -sh and our
> > > bussness
> > > application.
> > >
> > > What in a program can cause it not to die when your session is over? and
> > > what can i do to help clean these up rather than
just haveing greping
> > > them out
> > > of a ps and killing them?
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Bill Warner
> > > Direct Alliance Corp.
> > > Unix/Linux Admin.
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> > post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> > >
> > > Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> > >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> --
> --
> Bill Warner
> Direct Alliance Corp.
> Unix/Linux Admin.
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> Plug-discuss mailing list - Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Signup for your free USWEST.mail Email account
http://www.uswestmail.net
(text/plain)