Exercise 3: Why "CPU at 80%" Isn't Automatically a Problem — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT THE BATCH-PROCESSING EXAMPLE SHOWS
------------------------------
Per this chapter's tip-box, "a batch-processing server that regularly
runs at 80% CPU during its nightly job isn't showing a problem at all
- it's showing normal, expected behavior." The same raw number (80%
CPU) that might be alarming on one system is simply that system's
ordinary, expected workload.

WHY A RAW NUMBER ISN'T DIAGNOSTIC BY ITSELF
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "seeing 'CPU at 80%' and immediately treating it as
the problem skips a real question: is 80% actually unusual for this
machine, at this time of day, under its normal workload?" The number
alone says nothing about whether it represents a change from normal or
simply a description of normal.

WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE NEEDED
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "a number only becomes evidence once it's compared
against what's typical for that specific system." Knowing what this
particular machine's CPU usage typically looks like at this particular
time of day - a baseline - is what turns "80%" from a bare number into
either confirmation something is wrong (if 80% is unusual) or
confirmation nothing is (if it's routine).

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It explains specifically what the batch-processing example
demonstrates (a high number that is actually normal), and names the
missing ingredient - a baseline of what's typical for that system -
that would be needed to correctly interpret the number, rather than
just asserting the number "isn't enough" without saying what would be.