You can guess whether the first implementation included that or whether it caused an overloaded machine (that had to be rebooted) to discover that using the 5 min average is a pretty bad idea.
There is, however, no prize for the correct guess :) /Ole On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 12:46 AM Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification. That's what I wanted to be sure of, that the > load would immediately include any job just started so the system wouldn't be > overloaded > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 6:41 PM Ole Tange <o...@tange.dk> wrote: >> >> 100% is (as Joe says) computed as it is for --jobs. >> >> The load average is computed as: >> >> ps ax -o state,command|grep '^R'| wc -l >> >> This is basically 5 min average, but for this second only. This is to >> make sure that when GNU Parallel starts a job, the load will increase >> by one. >> >> /Ole >> >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:42 AM Joe Sapp <sa...@ieee.org> wrote: >> > >> > See the man page description for "--use-sockets-instead-of-threads" and >> > "--use-cores-instead-of-threads". I believe GNU Parallel counts the >> > number of processes running and uses that information to match what you >> > specify. By default it's the number of hyperthreaded cores available. >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 9:23 AM Neal Becker <ndbeck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Newb here. I want to schedule a bunch of tasks > #cores. Let's say I >> >> want to run #cores at a time (100% utilization). >> >> >> >> If I do >> >> seq 1 1000 | parallel --load 100% blah blah... >> >> >> >> What is the load that is being looked at? A 5 minute load average? So >> >> at the time I start this 1000 tasks, loadave is 0 (say), will it start >> >> all 1000 tasks at once, because loadave is 0 - only to have loadave >> >> become 1000? Or does it do something smarter than that? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Neal >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it
