(This is a suggestion for an improvement, not a proper bug report) A process running with nice -19 still gets 14% of the CPU when there is a non-nice process in parallell. If there is a nice -10 process running in parallell with a nice -19 process, the nice -19 process gets 25% of the CPU.
I see this as highly undesireable. I would like a nice -20 level, which takes 0% CPU power if there is another process asking for 99%. (Or change nice -19 so that it works like this.) "nice" was working like this on our old unix system (alpha stations): the nicest level meant that the process stopped running if there was another process asking for the CPU. (If the other process only asked for 30% of the processor, the maximum-nice process kept 70% CPU, of course.) E.g. if there was a nice -18 process running in parallell with a nice -19 process (the nicest level), the nice -18 process got 99% of the CPU and the nice -19 got 0%. I'm a Ph.D. student in complex systems, and we have many people who want to run processes on our linux machines. If I had a nice like on the alpha unix, I could start a two-week low priority processes with maximum niceness, knowing that I'm not disturbing anybody. Now I need to think first, because there might be somebody who also wants to wants to run a nice process, but one that only takes a day. Then I want them to have all of the CPU. As it is now, they might set nice -18 - then I get almost half of the CPU, which I don't want. If they set nice -10 I still get 25% of the CPU (which I don't want), PLUS the nice -10 person might feel that he is stealing CPU from people who might want to run with zero nice. A "I'm giving all other processes priority" nice level would solve that. hope this is of help - keep up the good work Henrik Haraldsson _______________________________________________ Bug-sh-utils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-sh-utils
