Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-07 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 00:51:10 -0500, Scott Prager wrote: > I found that /etc/conf.d/local.start was not on my system like the > article seems to expect. /etc/conf.d/local local was and it already had > two functions, local_start and _stop, which seemed to be what > local.start was supposed to be. An

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-06 Thread Scott Prager
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Florian Philipp < li...@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Improve_responsiveness_with_cgroups > > I welcome any improvements. This is my first wiki article and English is > not my mother tongue. > > Hope this helps, > Florian Philipp > >

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-05 Thread Florian Philipp
Am 06.12.2010 00:54, schrieb Bill Longman: > > > Hmm, I just noticed that something is not right here: Everything works > fine as long as I limit the cgroups to cpu scheduling (`mount -t cgroup > cgroup /dev/cgroup -o cpu`). As soon as I add the blkio subsystem for > disk I/O sche

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-05 Thread Bill Longman
> > Hmm, I just noticed that something is not right here: Everything works > fine as long as I limit the cgroups to cpu scheduling (`mount -t cgroup > cgroup /dev/cgroup -o cpu`). As soon as I add the blkio subsystem for > disk I/O scheduling ("-o cpu,blkio" or no "-o" at all), I can no longer > cr

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-05 Thread Florian Philipp
Am 05.12.2010 15:55, schrieb Florian Philipp: > Am 04.12.2010 22:00, schrieb Mark Knecht: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: >>> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:20 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: > Re the discussi

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-05 Thread Mark Knecht
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 04.12.2010 22:00, schrieb Mark Knecht: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: >>> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:20 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: > Re th

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-05 Thread Florian Philipp
Am 04.12.2010 22:00, schrieb Mark Knecht: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:20 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy >>> wrote: Re the discussion on cgroups on the 24/25 november - on my old AMD >

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-04 Thread Mark Knecht
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: > On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:20 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: >> > Re the discussion on cgroups on the 24/25 november - on my old AMD >> > barton 2500+ desktop - in the past a load of an

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-03 Thread William Kenworthy
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 17:20 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: > > Re the discussion on cgroups on the 24/25 november - on my old AMD > > barton 2500+ desktop - in the past a load of anything more than 5 made > > it very painful to use. Add in run

Re: [gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-03 Thread Mark Knecht
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM, William Kenworthy wrote: > Re the discussion on cgroups on the 24/25 november - on my old AMD > barton 2500+ desktop - in the past a load of anything more than 5 made > it very painful to use.  Add in running windows in a qemu vm at the same > time (all in 1.5G ram)

[gentoo-user] cgroupd really do work!

2010-12-03 Thread William Kenworthy
Re the discussion on cgroups on the 24/25 november - on my old AMD barton 2500+ desktop - in the past a load of anything more than 5 made it very painful to use. Add in running windows in a qemu vm at the same time (all in 1.5G ram) and its almost unusable as an interactive desktop. Now, with Flo