On 1/14/08, Andreas Kahari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I said, I don't have a good reason for wanting to do this. It just > seemed like something someone might want to do. But let me dream up > three examples: Sometimes firefox (or whatever program) goes a bit > haywire and brings the machine to a crawl. It would be nice to limit > firefox's CPU to a maximum of, say, 50% so that I'm guaranteed to have > 50% of the machine to work with.
nice. > Another example: Let's say I'm rebuilding the kernel, base system, and > all my packages after a major update from CVS after a long time away. > I'm not worried about how long this takes so I'm quite happy to run > the build at 5% of the CPU while I get on with my work. nice. > Third example, similar to the last one: I'm running a distributed.net > or SETI-at-home client in the background, but I don't ever want it to > run at 100% of the CPU, maybe because that would make the machine too > noisy during the night (due to the fans). while true do kill -STOP pid, sleep 1; kill -CONT pid; sleep 1; done
