On Monday 11 May 2009 16:50:44 Robert Hailey wrote: > > 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.
On Windows, it may not get enough CPU time even to do a graceful shutdown. If you start a game, or anything else that runs at higher priority, and uses all available cores, Freenet will not get scheduled at all, except maybe when the other task is waiting for I/O. > > > > 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. Partly because it forks each time... > > I suppose the real issue would be detecting that in a platform- > independent way (i.e. adding more JNI???). Exactly, sendmail isn't cross platform. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090512/ba1bfebc/attachment.pgp>
