On May 10, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Mittwoch 06 Mai 2009 00:23:54 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> Isn't using a reasonably low scheduling priority enough? And we >> already do >> that! > > Not really, since I can't disable it (when I want full speed), and > it sadly > doesn't work really well for memory consumption. > > I'd like an option to have freenet go inactive as soon as the system > load gets > too high. It will lose connections anyway (low scheduling priority > leads to > far too high answer-times), so it could just explicitely take a > break until my > system runs well again. > > But I don't want to have that all the time. When I compile something > in the > background, I want freenet to take predecence (that's already well > covered > with the low scheduling priority, though). > > Best wishes, > Arne
AFAIK this is a common design in other systems. Sendmail, for example, will not accept any network connections if the system's load is over some constant. I suppose the real issue would be detecting that in a platform- independent way (i.e. adding more JNI???). -- Robert Hailey _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
