On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Wed, 21.05.14 13:52, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Not following here... Aren't you describing a best-effort system here?
But the CPUShares= stuff is best-effort stuff anyway, and just
Hi,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 15:16 +0200, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Wouldn't this be solved by telling the kernel to schedule the starting
On Thu, 24.04.14 11:15, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
b) The ongoing patch
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-March/018220.html
is promising but it seems to be stopped. Any reason?
Well, I am still working on processing the backlog unmerged
patches.
On Tue, 20.05.14 11:33, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Wouldn't thes easily deadlock? Imagine you have two services on your
system A and B. Each of them needs to communicate with the other it
would become fully active. If your limit of active jobs is 2 there is
no
On Tue, 20.05.14 15:16, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Wouldn't this be solved by telling the kernel to schedule the starting
services with high latency (or whatever the terminology is), i.e.,
give each of them a relatively large timeslice. That would decrease
the
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Tue, 20.05.14 15:16, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Wouldn't this be solved by telling the kernel to schedule the starting
services with high latency (or whatever the terminology is),
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 15:16 +0200, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Wouldn't this be solved by telling the kernel to schedule the starting
services with high latency (or whatever the terminology is), i.e.,
give each of them a
On Wed, 21.05.14 13:52, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
Not following here... Aren't you describing a best-effort system here?
But the CPUShares= stuff is best-effort stuff anyway, and just tells the
kernel what is more important thant other stuff. Or, to turn this
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your thoughts and sorry about the delay.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Hi Umut,
Sorry for digging out an old thread, but it appears it has not yet
been answered.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
u...@tezduyar.com wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts and sorry about the delay.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Hi Umut,
Sorry for digging out an old thread, but it appears it has not yet
been
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
u...@tezduyar.com wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts and sorry about the delay.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Hi Umut,
Sorry for
Hi Umut,
Sorry for digging out an old thread, but it appears it has not yet
been answered.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
u...@tezduyar.com wrote:
We are starting many services between basic.target - multi-user.target
at the same time and due to this we are suffering
Hi,
We are starting many services between basic.target - multi-user.target
at the same time and due to this we are suffering from following two
subjects. What can we do to overcome these problems?
1) We would like to start a subset of services that are scheduled to
start between basic.target -
13 matches
Mail list logo
