On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 08:28:06PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
>    It's an issue. Nice values count for less than before due to fixes
> that Luoqi Chen made (and I committed). The behavior now isn't optimal,
> but it is better than the system locking up. NICE_WEIGHT might be okay
> to keep at 2. Try the attached diff; I'm pretty sure it won't blow
> things up :)
>    The diff should make a process at -20 which uses all available CPU
> schedule just slightly the ahead of a process at +20 which uses no CPU.
> A process which uses full CPU at 0 niceness would have a priority of
> 128, whereas a process using no CPU at 0 niceness would have a priority
> of 90. All processes will always have a priority less than or equal to
> 128, which is the priority at which a process with a niceness of +20
> always runs at. A +20 process won't get better priority than anything
> else, period. Try it out, see how it works for you:)

  I think this is not the clear solution for descibed problem 'couse the dnetc client 
still gets a priority and still have the share of time while other programs might run. 
For me idprio works great. Just change last string in the starting shell scipt.

  idprio 31 su nobody -c "$dir/dnetc -quiet" 2>/dev/null >/dev/null &

[WBR], Arcade Zardos. [AIST] [SAT Astronomy//Think to survive!] [mp3.aist.net]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to