Well, I guess it's a good thing I sent that to the list (given that I stated inaccurate information), but I thought I was replying to Thomas privately. (He used that "thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" address even though the message to which I replied was sent to me only--I just hit reply without looking at the return address, since we've been working on the problem with "mkisofs" piped to "cdrecord.")
Anyway, thanks for clearing up the Windows priority misinformation I sent out. I guess if I would have read the MSDN tech not Thomas referred me to first, I wouldn't have said that...
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
At 18:06 2002-11-25, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 14:00, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that while Unix (and work-alikes) has a -20
> (best scheduling priority) ... +20 (worst priority) range, Windows has only
> the six distinct levels. I don't know how Cygwin maps the Unix nice values
> to the Windows priorities, offhand. Probably it's a linear mapping.
>
> I haven't had a chance to read the information about scheduling in Windows,
> but I will. Thanks for referring me to it.
Windows has (offhand) ~ 30 scheduling levels. It has priority classes, which 'group' processes, and then relative priorities within each class.IIRC you can check sched,cc via CVS to see the actual mapping I used, it's not linear as such, but nearly so.
Thomas,
Those tests show nothing other than the time it takes to push the iso through to a bitbucket. Unless there is serious other load on the CPU, the time *should* be constant.
Rob
-- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
