On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My original contention still stands tho; that lowering the priority of the
> BackupPC_link process is a Good Thing.
I certainly agree - at least for servers where BackupPC is not the
only thing running.
On my
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
> > p
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:05:37PM -0600, dan wrote:
> unfortunately, ionice has only 3 levels. awesome, regular, and crappy. if
> you just push down the backuppc io process then EVERYTHING will pre-empt the
> IO, if you up it, it will consume every drop of blood from the system!
>
> note, you
unfortunately, ionice has only 3 levels. awesome, regular, and crappy. if
you just push down the backuppc io process then EVERYTHING will pre-empt the
IO, if you up it, it will consume every drop of blood from the system!
note, you should NEVER ionice a heavy IO process such as backuppc to -c1,
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
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 t
On 03/27 10:29 , Tony Schreiner wrote:
> Does nice and renice have much of an effect on I/O bound tasks?
I don't know the scheduler well enough to know for certain myself. I believe it
does.
--
Carl Soderstrom
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com
--
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 backup
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 t
