From owner-freebsd-tinderbox@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 7 18:06:58 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-tinderbox@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9F7106566B for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:06:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scheidell@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [204.89.241.253]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAE68FC14 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [10.70.1.253]) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8B1621C3B for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:43:03 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: SpammerTrap(r) VPS-1500 2.17 at mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net Received: from USBCTDC001.secnap.com (usbctdc001.secnap.com [10.70.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63008621C3A for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:43:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from MikeBook-Air.local (10.80.0.4) by USBCTDC001.secnap.com (10.70.1.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.722.0; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:43:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4F088429.9060205@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:43:05 -0500 From: Michael Scheidell Organization: SECNAP Network Security Corp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: priority question: X-BeenThere: freebsd-tinderbox@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Tinderbox reports, responses, and meta-comments" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:06:58 -0000 old FreeBSDer, new ports committer. I don't know where I have been hiding, but, since FreeBSD 2.x, and commercial products based on FreeBSD since 4.?, never knew about tinderbox. Thomas Abthorpe had gratiously allowed me to use his tinderbox, and in fact, has set up a new amd64 tinderbox with more horsepower. this one can run two tinderbuilds at once. So, my question is about priorities. looks like all the priorities do is to decide who gets queued up next to run. lower priority's get queued up first. right now, if a priority 9 and a priority 10 build are running, they will both run (if they are the only instances), but they run at the same os priority. This seems fine for as single instance tinderbox, but for one that can run multiple instances, would it be helpful if I experimented and submitted patches to tie the build priority to nice? this way, you 'nice {priority}.... buildscript' so, not only is the priority 9 build going to be queued up before any additional 10's, but it will (in theory) complete faster. (in theory, practice and theory are the same... in practice, they are different) is this something that is even a reasonable thing to do? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO o: 561-999-5000 d: 561-948-2259 >*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation * Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011 * Best Intrusion Prevention Product * Hot Company Finalist 2011 * Best Email Security Product * Certified SNORT Integrator