On Sunday 10 May 2009 20:50:00 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.
We could pause most of the node relatively easily, there will still be some background activity, and therefore some garbage collection, but it can be kept minimal... > > 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). How would Freenet tell the difference? -------------- 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/20090513/57ba399b/attachment.pgp>
