They both interacted via Github:
https://github.com/BOINC/boinc/issues/1128
It should be possible to message them that way.
-- D
On 9/30/2015 2:51 AM, Richard Haselgrove wrote:
Thanks - that at least keeps the previous values, and I see that the two groups
can be set (or not set) independently. I've updated the Wiki to match.
Does anybody know whether either Daniel Hendrycks (original trac request) or
Aen Bleidd (patch contributor) is in a position to follow this discussion - I
can't match either of them to an email address on the subscriber list, and I
don't know which project(s) they might be active at.
We might be able to mention that Daniel's original problem could have been
solved by using Process Lasso - that's what I use for the one and only
Einstein@Home application version which runs best at REALTIME priority (I
wouldn't wan't to switch the whole of BOINC to that, for obvious reasons).
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015, 6:35, David Anderson <da...@ssl.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
How about if you can specify two priorities in cc_config.xml:
<process_priority> for CPU-intensive apps,and
<process_priority_special>for others (GPU, NCI, wrapper).
-- David
On 9/29/2015 2:32 PM, Richard Haselgrove wrote:
The trouble with this global starting point is that - if selected - it
knocks out the subtle, planned, evolved behaviour which BOINC already has for
managing priority.
We currently have special priority cases (in the sense of OS run priority -
point taken, and well made) for NCI apps, GPU apps, and wrapper apps. All of
those go out of the window if the user chooses a Default Process Priority. This
feels like a special case for the benefit of users who run one project only
under BOINC, and as such rather mitigates against the vision of BOINC as a
project-neutral (and multi-project) infrastructure.
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015, 21:00, David Anderson
<da...@ssl.berkeley.edu> wrote:
We could increase the resolution;
a global setting is a good starting point.
Just so everyone knows:
this involves the OS priority at which tasks run,
not BOINC's prioritization of tasks (i.e. which ones run first).
-- David
On 9/29/2015 1:10 AM, Richard Haselgrove wrote:
Is it really appropriate for the new Default process priority
switch to
operate at the cc_config level?
I'd have thought it was a more natural fit for app_config, so
that the
user could adjust the relative priority of different projects,
different
applications, and even different app_versions.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.
