From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 31 13:55:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6A816A4D0 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from light.sdf.com (light.sdf.com [207.200.153.231]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B4343D54 for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:55:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by light.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1An33E-000OOk-Pa; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:53:16 -0800 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:53:16 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Harald Schmalzbauer In-Reply-To: <200401312231.59784@harrymail> Message-ID: <20040131134854.A18293@light.sdf.com> References: <200401312146.32847@harrymail> <20040131212419.GA76513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200401312231.59784@harrymail> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Steve Kargl Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE and nice still ignored X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:55:15 -0000 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