On 03/28 09:43 , Tino Schwarze wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:27:25PM -0600, Daniel Denson wrote: > > not really. IO is not CPU bound and nicing a process only changes its > > CPU usage priority (on linux 2.6) > > > > Now, if you have a processes eating up 100% of the CPU, renicing a > > processes that uses heavy IO *can* have an effect as the program using > > all the IO could gain(or loose) the ability to get to the CPU in a > > timely manner. > > I don't think that this should be a problem. IO is handled by the > kernel. The process is stuck until the kernel finishes IO. When kernel > finished IO, it doesn't care whether the process will pick up the > results now or sometime later. That's at least what I _assume_ to > happen, I don't know for sure. > > > generally speaking though, renicing and IO bound task wont make any > > difference > > You could try ionice to lower the IO impact...
thanks for the updates, everyone. I wasn't expecting that nice would have as much effect on I/O as it did on CPU; and the effect would be mostly secondary; but the information is appreciated. My original contention still stands tho; that lowering the priority of the BackupPC_link process is a Good Thing. -- Carl Soderstrom Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
