On 31 Mar 2001, at 22:34, Nathan Russell wrote:
> Under Linux, it is only slightly better. (note, however, that the
> 'other' job is not a particularly kind one in CPU terms!)
Just checked. Kernel 2.4 behaves just like Solaris. Kernel 2.2
doesn't, a "nice -n20"'d CPU-bound process gets hardly
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> 1) Every few seconds get the average system load, in
> terms of how many CPUs would be required to run every
> active process at full speed;
>
> 2) If the load exceeds the available number of CPUs,
> suspend the user program, but keep everythin
On Saturday 31 March 2001 03:09, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2001, at 15:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > processes are running. However, under Solaris, something
> > run at priority 19 still tends to get a
> > not-insignificant share of CPU time - a typical number
> > is 15% on a system
On 30 Mar 2001, at 15:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I run Mlucas on several Sparcs under Solaris at work,
> and I've noticed something not so nice about the Solaris
> nice command.
I never did find out why the (unix) command was called "nice". My
theory is that a neolithic unix hacker wanted t
I run Mlucas on several Sparcs under Solaris at work,
and I've noticed something not so nice about the Solaris
nice command. The lowest priority Solaris allows is 19,
which on any other Unix-like OS I've used would mean the
job in question only gets CPU cycles if no high-priority
processes are run
