Re: Periodic tasks are not nice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Periodic tasks are not nice

John Levine
It appears that Ronald F. Guilmette <[hidden email]> said:
>Shouldn't all these sorts of background taks be nice'd?

Maybe. My not very new server has 12 CPUs (six on each chip) so there
is always an available CPU so the speed limit is the disk, not the
processor. Nice only affects CPU scheduling.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Periodic tasks are not nice

Ronald F. Guilmette
In message <[hidden email]>, you wrote:

>It appears that Ronald F. Guilmette <[hidden email]> said:
>>Shouldn't all these sorts of background taks be nice'd?
>
>Maybe. My not very new server has 12 CPUs (six on each chip) so there
>is always an available CPU so the speed limit is the disk, not the
>processor. Nice only affects CPU scheduling.

Hummm... OK.

But on the other hand, if a given process is starved of CPU, then it
will naturally be less able to suck up all of the available actuator
movements of the spinning rust disks that I am still cheap enough to
own, yes?


Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"