On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:36:42AM +0000, s. keeling wrote: > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On 05/11/07 12:49, s. keeling wrote: > > > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Yes, but competent OSs have batch queues for running such jobs. Why > > >> Unix has never had such a capability is beyond my understanding. > > > > > > man batch: at, batch, atq, atrm - queue, examine or delete jobs for > > > later execution. > > > > > >> (NO!! cron is *not* an adequate substitute for batch queues!) > > > > > > cron's for regularly repeated jobs. batch and at are for sequential > > > job scheduling. > > > > How do you create more queues than just "b"? > > I'm serious: why? There's only so much resources available in a > machine. Do you want a job to complete asap, or do you want a number > of jobs to complete asap? This is the high ground of performance > analysis we're fiddling with here. >
What if there is more than one processor? What if some are IO bound and others compute-bound? It would be great if you have an IO bound job running and an idle processor to be able to select a compute-bound job to run on the spare processor. Tonight I'll read up on VMS. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
