Some more data as suggested. I run without nice, with nice -n 5 and nice -n 10, each version twice:
Without nice: real 0m10.662s user 0m9.513s sys 0m3.448s real 0m10.121s user 0m7.712s sys 0m2.444s CPU% according to top reached 118%. nice -n 5: real 0m22.141s user 0m27.202s sys 0m1.444s real 0m21.855s user 0m28.674s sys 0m2.468s CPU% according to top reached 147%. nice -n 10: real 0m21.638s user 0m26.878s sys 0m1.268s real 0m21.654s user 0m27.090s sys 0m1.176s CPU% according to top reached 131%. I do not trust the accuracy of top; I only use it to see relative CPU usage of processes running *at the same time*. The above results speak for themselves. However the cpu usage reported by 'time' shows that nice incurs a hefty penalty even though the system does nothing else. I stress that I do not think that the above indicate a problem with nice. This maybe just how it works. I think I need something other than nice to tell the system that a process should be given all the spare cycles but nothing else. Any suggestions? Matyas - Every hardware eventually breaks. Every software eventually works. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
