> each request was taking 6 / 60 = 0.1s = 100ms of time using-or-waiting-for-the-CPU.
(emphasis mine)
In my original read, I thought her core count was greater than her load, so that would also be her direct time-on-cpu. Now I'm not so sure.
And while time-waiting-for-cpu might not be important to optimizing the codebase, you probably still want to know that your serving processes are waiting for CPU; after all, it is that number that your user's browser is seeing (at least, between the two it is moreso that one). Such a result might indicate a larger machine or more machines are required, for example.
> each request was taking 6 / 60 = 0.1s = 100ms of time using-or-waiting-for-the-CPU.
(emphasis mine)
In my original read, I thought her core count was greater than her load, so that would also be her direct time-on-cpu. Now I'm not so sure.
And while time-waiting-for-cpu might not be important to optimizing the codebase, you probably still want to know that your serving processes are waiting for CPU; after all, it is that number that your user's browser is seeing (at least, between the two it is moreso that one). Such a result might indicate a larger machine or more machines are required, for example.