Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!elf.ee.lbl.gov!torek From: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: accurate runtime accounting (was Load Avarage graph pattern) Message-ID: <14506@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Date: 19 Jun 91 20:34:55 GMT References: <14081@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1991Jun12.130441.20640@fccc.edu> <14398@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1991Jun18.175921.14843@fccc.edu> Reply-To: torek@elf.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 28 X-Local-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 13:34:55 PDT >In article <14398@dog.ee.lbl.gov> I wrote: >>... I believe [a relatively prime accounting clock] will miss >>short-lived processes on modern (fast) machines. In article <1991Jun18.175921.14843@fccc.edu> stodola@orion.fccc.edu (Robert K. Stodola) writes: >I guess I should have explained the context of the project. The purpose was >to obtain accurate usage information on a per user basis, and provide good >average load statistics. This is somewhat different from situations I have in mind, in which people run one-time (or few-times) short throwaway programs. In this case there simply are not enough instances for the statistics to average out. What I do not know is whether increasing the frequency of the sampling clock (always keeping it asynchronous with respect to the scheduling clock) would suffice to flatten out the sampling jitter. >... The importance of the statistical method of measurement is that you >avoid the rhythms imposed by the system clock entirely. Right. The clock synchronization problem has been demonstrated repeatedly, under various Unix systems and under other systems. We know it exists; we know an unsynchronized sampling clock fixes it in some situations. Whether it fixes it in what is becoming a more common situation (fast Unix boxes) is, I think, still an open question. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 415 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov