2.4.x nice level
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
"BS" == BERECZ Szabolcs <[email protected]> writes:
BS> ... a setiathome running at nice level 19, and a bladeenc at BS> nice level 0. setiathome uses 14 percent, and bladeenc uses BS> 84 percent of the processor. I think, setiathome should use BS> max 2-3 percent. the 14 percent is way too much for me. BS> ...
BS> with kernel 2.2.16 it worked for me.
BS> now I use 2.4.2-ac20
Would it the case that bladeenc running on 2.4.2 spends more time doing I/O? I am not saying that the userland makes more I/O requests, but if the same set of I/O requests are taking longer to complete on 2.4.2, then while bladeenc is waiting for their completion, it is not so surprising that the other process uses the otherwise-idle CPU cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------
--== Sent via Deja.com ==--
http://www.deja.com/
Quoted 10 lines · Quim K Holland
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
"BS" == BERECZ Szabolcs <[email protected]> writes:
BS> ... a setiathome running at nice level 19, and a bladeenc at BS> nice level 0. setiathome uses 14 percent, and bladeenc uses BS> 84 percent of the processor. I think, setiathome should use BS> max 2-3 percent. the 14 percent is way too much for me. BS> ...
BS> with kernel 2.2.16 it worked for me.
BS> now I use 2.4.2-ac20
---
I was running 2 copies of setiathome on a 4 CPU server
@ work. The two processes ran nice'd -19. The builds we were running still took 20-30% longer as opposed to when setiathome wasn't running (went from 45 minutes up to about an hour). This machine has 1G, so I don't think it was hurting from swapping.
I finally wrote a script that checked every 30 seconds -- if the load on the machine climbed over '4', the script would SIGSTOP the seti jobs. Once the load on the machine fell below 2, it would send a SIGCONT to them.
I was also running setiathome on my laptop for a short while -- but the fan kept coming on and the computer would get really hot. So I stopped that. Linux @ idle doesn't seem to ever kick on the fan, but turn on a CPU cruching program and it sure seemed to heat up the machine. I still wonder how many kilo or mega watts go to running dispersed computation programs. Just one of those things I may never know....
-l
Signature · 4 lines
The above thoughts and | They may have nothing to do with writings are my own. | the opinions of my employer. :-) L A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI [email protected] | Voice: (650) 933-5338