On 06/03/11 16:10, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 06/02/11 02:31, Corey wrote:
>> On 06/01/2011 10:16 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had tinkered with a solution for this:
>>>> Cron wakes up a minute before the batch run is scheduled to run.
>>>> Cron will
>>>> then copy a random 4kb sector from the hard disk to RAM, then run
>>>> either an
>>>> MD5 or SHA hash against it. The whole process would be timed and if it
>>>> completed within a a reasonable amount of time for the system then it
>>>> would
>>>> kick off a batch job
>>>>
>>>> This was the easiest way I thought of measuring the actual
>>>> performance of
>>>> the system at any given time since it measures the entire system and
>>> closely
>>>> emulates actual work.
>>>>
>>>> While this isn't really the right thing to do, I found it to be the most
>>>> effective on my systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You really think cron should be doing it's own calculation ? I don't
>>> like that *at all*.
>>>
>>> Can't we just have a higher default threshold for cron ?
>>> Can't we default to 0 ?
>>>
>>> I think this is something that should be looked up, if we admit load
>>> average is a shitty measure, we shouldn't rely on it for running cron
>>> jobs.
>>>
>>> I hereby vote for default to 0. (Thank god this isn't a democracy :-) )
>>>
>> Just have cron look at the system load average...
>>
>> <ducking> :)
>>
>
> a few posts it was mentioned that that is actually the case
^
*ago*
