From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 26 12:37:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26294 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:37:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26287 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:37:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA08253 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:36:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dhw) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:36:32 -0800 (PST) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199901262036.MAA08253@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Error in vm_fault change In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:06:54 -0500 (EST) >From: Robert Watson >I.e., today it's a realtime machine, tomorrow it's a single-user >workstation, the next day a heavily loaded timesharing machine with CPU >time partitioning. I can see a value to this ability.... Back when I was an MVS (IBM mainframe) systems programmer, it wasn't uncommon for a machine to be set up to have differing SRM (? "System Resource Manager" seems to strike a resonant chord in my memory) "objective curves" depending on the expected workload, which would often vary depending on time-of-day: for example, during the day, the system would be weighted to favor interactive processes, while at night, it would switch to more of a batch mode of operation (for back-office file-crunching). Although the range of work handled reasonably adequately by modern UNIX systems is pretty awesome, the ability to favor one type of workload over another can give a sysadmin another "knob" to twist -- and it may merely be used more on a per-site basis than on a time-of-day basis, but it would be rather silly to assume that everyone's workload is the same. The boxes I'm responsible for here, for example, aren't under the kind of load (qualitatively or quantitatively) that the shellN boxes at BEST (Hi, Matt!) are, for example. (I consider this A Good Thing.) And the workload of one box may well differ from that of another; this is intentional. david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message