[lug] load average constant at 2

Jason Bowen Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU
Thu Sep 14 16:11:45 MDT 2000 

I pin-pointed what it was I think.  When httpd is starting there is a
message about trying to mount on /netfs and that it will keep trying.  I
didn't even have netfs starting up.  I killed amd and the load dropped to
normal levels, start it back up and it went back up.  I'm going to reboot
with netfs and amd starting at boot time to see if the problem persists.
Thanks for all the help again.
Jason
 
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Jason Bowen wrote:

> I started shutting down services and it dropped to normal levels.  After
> restarting the services it is running fine.  I dunno what was going
> on.  Didn't pinpoint the exact service because I had accidentally hit a
> key in the top window so it was waiting for input.  Thanks for the help.
> Jason
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Atkinson, Chip wrote:
> 
> > It means that it checks out ok.  The man page says that all discrepancies
> > are displayed, implying that no discrepencies are not displayed.  
> > 
> > Ok, do you have network access?  can you ping someone like yahoo.com?
> > Sometimes network timeouts can cause a problem.  Also, what do you see when
> > you run top for a while?  You could go through and start killing processes
> > and watch your load.  That often works for me when I've tried everything
> > else.
> > 
> > Chip
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: Jason Bowen [mailto:Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 3:21 PM
> > To: 'lug at lug.boulder.co.us'
> > Subject: RE: [lug] load average constant at 2
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Atkinson, Chip wrote:
> > 
> > > How about rpm --verify procps-2.0.6-12mdk?
> > 
> > Well that is the filename, I had mistyped earlier but I get nothing
> > printed out.  Does that mean it checks out?  The man page says nothing
> > about having no output from the run.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Here's a script that goes through /proc to see if ps returns every process
> > > found in /proc:
> > > 
> > > for i in $(ls -d /proc/[0-9][0-9]*); do
> > > PROC=$(ps auxw | grep $(basename $i))
> > > if [ -z "$PROC" ]; then
> > >   echo $PROC is not shown by ps
> > > fi
> > > done
> > 
> > Nothing was printed.
> > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Jason Bowen [mailto:Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 3:07 PM
> > > To: 'lug at lug.boulder.co.us'
> > > Subject: RE: [lug] load average constant at 2
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Atkinson, Chip wrote:
> > > 
> > > > That's odd.  What's rpm -qa | grep ps show?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > getty_ps-2.0.7j-9mdk
> > > psmisc-18-2mdk
> > > tetex-dvips-1.0.6-6mdk
> > > psutils-p17-3mdk
> > > xlispstat-3.52.9-4mdk
> > > gnapster-1.3.12-0mdk_helix_1
> > > procps-X11-2.0.6-5mdk
> > > psacct-6.3-2mdk
> > > procps-2.0.6-12mdk
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Jason Bowen [mailto:Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 3:03 PM
> > > > To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > Subject: RE: [lug] load average constant at 2
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I had reinstalled procps but here in intersting thing to me.
> > > > 
> > > > [/bin]# rpm -qf ps
> > > > procps-2.0.6-5mdk
> > > > [/bin]# rpm --verify procps-2.0.6-5mdk
> > > > package procps-2.0.6-5mdk is not installed
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Atkinson, Chip wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The crude version of the ps patch that was installed on my machine was
> > > > "too
> > > > > small".  If you 
> > > > > ls -l $(which ps) and see something that's around 6K bytes, rather
> > than
> > > > 60K
> > > > > bytes, it might be a tipoff.  You can use RPM to help perhaps:
> > > > > rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/ps
> > > > > returns something like procps-2.0.6-5
> > > > > followed by 
> > > > > rpm --verify procps-2.0.6-5
> > > > > 
> > > > > Chip
> > > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Jason Bowen [mailto:Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:47 PM
> > > > > To: 'lug at lug.boulder.co.us'
> > > > > Subject: RE: [lug] load average constant at 2
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ps doesn't show anything unusual either.  I thought about an intruder
> > > but
> > > > > I don't see anything to be honest.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Atkinson, Chip wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > What does ps show?  Any chance there is a secret process that's
> > > running
> > > > as
> > > > > > the result of an intrusion?  It was something I found on my machines
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > It didn't appear to affect the load too much though.  When I see
> > that
> > > > > > problem, it's often something like netscape.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chip
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From: Jason Bowen [mailto:Jason.Bowen at Colorado.EDU]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:38 PM
> > > > > > To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > > > Subject: [lug] load average constant at 2
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For about 2 weeks now, at least that is when I noticed it first, my
> > > load
> > > > > > average sits at 2.  This is with top reporting the idle processes at
> > > > close
> > > > > > to 100%.  When I reboot the machine the 5 and 15 minute load
> > averages
> > > > > > slowly creep towards 2.00 while the 1 minute average drops to 2.00
> > > > > > after letting the machine idle after I login at the console.  Has
> > > > anybody
> > > > > > seen something like this before?
> > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>

More information about the LUG mailing list