From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e215ef9bd62c159a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Steve O'Neill <"x0955$"@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: MVME177 CPU Utilization
Date: 1997/07/10
Message-ID: <33C56321.42D0@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256057638
References: <33C4D576.2ACD@admin.tc.faa.gov>
Organization: Sanders A Lockheed Martin Company
Reply-To: "x0955$"@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ron Thompson wrote:
> In order to measure CPU Utilization, it is proposed that the figures
> for two 177s, two that are blissfully unaware of one another, be
> averaged together in order to meet required overhead reserves.
> Any opinions???  The email is fine for responses if you care to, and
> Thank You all.
> --
> 
> rct
> 
> The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

That's not a valid measure of system reserves.  Unless, of course, one
processor can borrow time from the other or allocate any overload work
to the other processor.  My approach would be to take the worst case
loading of the two processors.

Of course this is only my opinion.

Steve O'Neill