From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Mar 6 12:41:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA22055 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:41:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE [134.95.166.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA22034 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:40:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from H.Husic@Uni-Koeln.DE) Received: from nero (dialup125.zpr.Uni-Koeln.DE [134.95.219.125]) by Octopussy.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA14036; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 21:40:31 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: X-Sender: aaz09@mail.rrz.uni-koeln.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:32:12 +0100 To: Doug White From: Hrvoje Husic Subject: Re: Bug in the process-scheduler & niceness of 20? Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 22:06 05.03.98 -0800, Doug White wrote: >Not entirely. If you want to set idle priority, run `idprio -203'. With >niceness 20, the application will not be scheduled often, but will be >scheduled. In idle priority, it will only be scheduled if there are no >ready processes to schedule, eg the system is idle. Well, it still should not get the same CPU-cycles a gzip without niceness gets. The niceness does not affect the scheduling at all. >My rc564 (my rc5des didn't die like everyone else's) is chugging along >fine. Mine is chugging fine as well, but it should not do so with other processes requiering CPU-time. -- Hrvoje Husic To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message