>Actually, the difference between background/foreground processes is mostly
>overblown. First, you can set adjust the relative priority. Second, if
>you're not using your server as a desktop system, then foreground processes
>are pretty minimal.
FYI, I did some tests on this a while back (on Win2K). It's handled with
the Control Panel -> System -> Advanced -> Performance Options
settings. It can be set to either "Applications" or "Background
Services." At "Applications", I clocked it at 50ms per timeslice. At
"Background Services", I clocked it at 200ms per timeslice.
What does this mean? I can't say for sure. Microsoft must think that the
200ms timeslices are better for network applications. And perhaps they
are. If you are sitting at the computer, you would be able to detect a
200ms delay (when typing, for example). On the other hand, though, a couple
of 200ms delays on a web page (served over a relatively fast link) would be
noticeable as well. Our static DNS web pages typically respond in well
under 200ms (including DNS overhead resolving the domain of the web page,
TCP/IP overhead, etc.). If Windows allowed an extra 200ms delay vs an
extra 50ms delay, it might be noticeable. A couple such delays would
definitely be noticeable.
-Scott
---
Declude: Anti-virus, Anti-spam and Anti-hijacking solutions for
IMail. http://www.declude.com
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
