Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:53:16 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@sdf.com> To: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored Message-ID: <20040131134854.A18293@light.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <200401312231.59784@harrymail> References: <200401312146.32847@harrymail> <20040131212419.GA76513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200401312231.59784@harrymail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: ... > If I start a process with nice 15 (like seti) it shouldn't slow down my > machine by exponetial factors. > It should take cycles which are almost unused and not block regular processes > (like make) ... Isn't "idprio" the best way of scheduling a process to run when the system is otherwise idle? Can you try with idprio? From what I know of "nice", it should reduces the processes scheduling priority. There is no definition in the nice manpage on the exact definition of reduced priority means. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040131134854.A18293>