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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. Tomhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040131134854.A18293>