On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > It occurs to me that nicing BackupPC_link down to a lower priority > level > would be beneficial at times; mostly when there is a link process > going on > at the same time as some dump processes. > > The important thing in backups is to get the data to the backup > server. Once > that is done, the housekeeping tasks are a much lower priority (so > long as > they get done). > > In order to speed up the backups which may be contending with a > link process > for disk and CPU, I think it would be beneficial to nice the link > process > down automatically. > > I would argue that the BackupPC_nightly processes can also be niced > down, > for the same reason. They may be contending with dump processes; > and the > dumps are far more important. (Unless you're nearly out of space, > which is a > pathological case). > > Craig, is this a fairly straightforward change, and do you think it > beneficial? > > -- > Carl Soderstrom > Systems Administrator > Real-Time Enterprises > www.real-time.com >
Does nice and renice have much of an effect on I/O bound tasks? Just asking, I don't know the answer. Tony Schreiner Boston College ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
