Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Mike Galbraith:
> On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 21:13 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > Now for something constructive... by any chance is Mike running KDE
> > instead of GNOME?
>
> Yes.
>
> -Mike
Well, then, it might indeed be the KIOslave/pipe stuff. I experience
Willy Tarreau wrote:
The per-user system would also be nice for servers, provided there are
CPU/disc IO/swapper/... quotas or priorities at least.
This is too hard to adjust. Imagine what would happen to your hundreds of
apache processes when the "backup" user will start the rsync or
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 07:54:20AM +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
> >> where we need two types of
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 07:54:20AM +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
where we need two types of schedulers :
Willy Tarreau wrote:
The per-user system would also be nice for servers, provided there are
CPU/disc IO/swapper/... quotas or priorities at least.
This is too hard to adjust. Imagine what would happen to your hundreds of
apache processes when the backup user will start the rsync or
Op Sunday 18 March 2007, schreef Mike Galbraith:
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 21:13 -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Now for something constructive... by any chance is Mike running KDE
instead of GNOME?
Yes.
-Mike
Well, then, it might indeed be the KIOslave/pipe stuff. I experience sometimes
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
> where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for
> the servers. After all, this is
Miell; Linus Torvalds; Andrew
> Morton
> Subject: Re: [ck] Re: is RSDL an "unfair" scheduler too?
>
>
> Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> > On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
> On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
> > > heuristics, it does not have _any_. It's purely entitlement based.
> >
> >
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
> > heuristics, it does not have _any_. It's purely entitlement based.
>
> RSDL still has heuristics very much, but this time it's hardcoded
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Ingo Molnar:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
heuristics, it does not have _any_. It's purely entitlement based.
RSDL still has heuristics very much, but this time it's hardcoded into
the
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
heuristics, it does not have _any_. It's purely entitlement based.
RSDL still has
Morton
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: is RSDL an unfair scheduler too?
Op Saturday 17 March 2007, schreef Con Kolivas:
On Saturday 17 March 2007 22:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite the claims to the contrary, RSDL does not have _less_
heuristics, it does
On 3/18/07, Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 06:24 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Maybe we're all discussing the problem because we have reached the point
where we need two types of schedulers : one for the desktop and one for
the servers. After all, this is already
14 matches
Mail list logo
