Details about how process scheduler works?
in [Unix Programming]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Apr 2010 18:12 .lihP ,sreehC .detaeper eb ton lliw thgisrevo siht tah t gnitouq ciretose erom fo laitnetop lluf eht esilaer ot d e t s Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> writes: l s t > On 04/15/10 06:37 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: i u y >> Or when you post a followup you can copy the a r l >> initial article into a decent text editor, f t e >> compose it there (adding proper "> " prefixes s >> and so forth if necessary), and the copy it e I .. >> back to OE. Yes, it's some extra work, and v >> no, ideally you shouldn't have to do it, but a . I >> the alternative is to continue posting as you h y >> have been and imposing that cost on the rest u f >> of us. u g i > o n > This is how Keith's message should be quoted. y e d v I couldn't disagree more. Your approach indicates that i t t hat quite surprising, as otherwise you're a fairly imagina -- I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
From: Chris Friesen on 14 Apr 2010 18:30 On 04/14/2010 04:12 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > .lihP ,sreehC .detaeper eb ton lliw thgisrevo siht tah > t > gnitouq ciretose erom fo laitnetop lluf eht esilaer ot d > e t > s Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> writes: l s > t > On 04/15/10 06:37 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: i u > y >> Or when you post a followup you can copy the a r > l >> initial article into a decent text editor, f t > e >> compose it there (adding proper "> " prefixes > s >> and so forth if necessary), and the copy it e I > . >> back to OE. Yes, it's some extra work, and v > >> no, ideally you shouldn't have to do it, but a . > I >> the alternative is to continue posting as you h y > >> have been and imposing that cost on the rest u > f >> of us. u g > i > o > n > This is how Keith's message should be quoted. y e > d v > I couldn't disagree more. Your approach indicates that i > t t > hat quite surprising, as otherwise you're a fairly imagina I love it! :) Chris
From: David Given on 14 Apr 2010 18:43 On 14/04/10 21:00, Peter Olcott wrote: [...] > My ISP provides these for $56 per month including UPS and > lots of bandwidth and 2.0 GB RAM. That's very cheap for dedicated hardware --- are you sure this isn't a virtual machine image on a shared machine? If it is, all your microoptimisations will be wasted, as you'll have *no* control over what the processor is actually doing (the VM hosting software will be performing invisible context switches and thrashing cache without your knowledge). If it is dedicated hardware, who's it with? I might want to use it. -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ───── │ │ "In the beginning was the word. │ And the word was: Content-type: text/plain" --- Unknown sage
From: Peter Olcott on 14 Apr 2010 18:48 "David Given" <dg(a)cowlark.com> wrote in message news:hq5ge3$lbt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 14/04/10 21:00, Peter Olcott wrote: > [...] >> My ISP provides these for $56 per month including UPS and >> lots of bandwidth and 2.0 GB RAM. > > That's very cheap for dedicated hardware --- are you sure > this isn't a > virtual machine image on a shared machine? If it is, all > your Yes, I am absolutely sure of this. I even bought an identical machine for offline testing purposes. > microoptimisations will be wasted, as you'll have *no* > control over what > the processor is actually doing (the VM hosting software > will be > performing invisible context switches and thrashing cache > without your > knowledge). > > If it is dedicated hardware, who's it with? I might want > to use it. > > -- > ???? dg(a)cowlark.com ????? http://www.cowlark.com ????? > ? > ? "In the beginning was the word. > ? And the word was: Content-type: text/plain" --- Unknown > sage
From: Stefan Monnier on 15 Apr 2010 01:18
> The first process is a web server that has been adapted so > that it can directly interface with four OCR processes or > one OCR process with four threads. From your description, I just can't figure out how you get to a conclusion that you need: Ultimately what I am looking for is a way to provide absolute priority to one kind of job over three other kinds of jobs. or that The remaining three will have equal priority to each other. I want the high priority process to get about 80% of the CPU time available to the four processes, and the remaining three to share the remaining 20%. I don't mean to say that the end behavior shouldn't be how you describe it, but that these aren't the real constraints but their consequence. If you think of the actual constraints that you're trying to solve you'll probably find it easier to get to a solution. Among other things, the kind of directives you need to give to the OS might be closer to the higher-level constraints than to the lower-level consequence described in terms of CPU percentage. Also none of this sounds like any kind of strong real-time constraints: you may think of it as real-time, but really all you want to do is probably to minimize response latency. So I'd attack the problem in a very pragmatic manner: first try it out without any tweaking, look at the result and if you don't like it then try to improve it by tweaking scheduler options such as nice settings (always a good start since they're very easy to set). Stefan |