On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any
> thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a
> server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes
> on disk wait, 3 of th
Hello,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 12:45:47PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any
> thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a
> server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes
> on disk wait,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:58:55PM -0700, LA Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Specifically, I'm talking about 'nice'd "down" processes -- things
Well, it is difficult to implement (network bandwidht limiting or i/o
latency for example), but asking for it once a year might make it reality.
needed.
-l
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Viro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 1:52 PM
> To: Rik van Riel
> Cc: LA Walsh; lkml
> Subject: Re: Disk priorities...
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
&
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > And if you mean reads... Good luck propagating the originator
> > information.
>
> Isn't it the case that for most of the filesystem
> reads the current process is the one that is the
> originator of the request ?
Not true for metadata (consider the
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever
> > > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?.
> >
> > Not currently, but it w
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote:
>
> > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever
> > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?.
>
> Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum
> elevator sort
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever
> been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?.
Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum
elevator sorting latency according to the niceness of the
process. I h
Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever been any
thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?. I was on a
server with 4 CPU's but only 2 SCSI disks. Many times I'll see 4 processes
on disk wait, 3 of them at a cpu-nice of 19 while the foreground processes
get bogged d
9 matches
Mail list logo
