Well, then you would remember CHAP (where you create a processing priority). One could flag some processes to work as foreground and others, where finish time was not of great concern, to background. One then set CRON items to CHAP up processes overnight, thus getting more done when the load had all gone home. The mixture of CHAP and RQM could make for a user friendly IT dept.
On 30 August 2012 00:19, Rutherford, Marc < marc.rutherf...@advancedbionics.com> wrote: > Additionally I would use RQM in batch loops that ran for a huge number of > iterations, and where I was not concerned about the final completion time. > > At the end of each loop I would issue RQM would release any remaining > time-slice - I would get my big butt out of the way. This would allow > other users (normally the interactive ones) to proceed. It was a good way > to 'play nice'. > > Marc Rutherford > Principal Programmer Analyst > Advanced Bionics LLC > 661) 362 1754 > > -----Original Message----- > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto: > u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Noah > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 7:33 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] [ud] Sub-second delay? > > Yes, Dennis, it did. There are long technical explanations of how it > worked, but it was indeed a clever, 'techie-appealing' concept. Back in the > old Microdata days (yes, I'm that old), you could get in big trouble with > the timeslice approach, though. If your timeslice was 50 ms, after that > time everything you were doing got saved and the next process in line got > the juice. There were certain things that released your timeslice, too, > such as IO operations, etc. If you were doing disk access, and what you > were working with got paged out of memory, you had to go get it again when > your turn came around again. If that took too long, you went through the > same thing again, and you might actually sit there all day and get nothing > done. No wonder we worried about frame faulting. Ah, those were the days... > > Thanks for the trip down memory lane! > Charlie > > Tiny Bear's Wild Bird Store > "Everything For The Backyard Bird Enthusiast, Except For The Birds" > http://www.TinyBearWildBirdStore.com > Toll Free: 1-855-TinyBear (855-846-9232) > > > On 08-28-2012 9:19 PM, dennis bartlett wrote: > > Who on earth is going to understand what 'release quantum' (RQM) means? > > Still, it worked.. and such a clever, 'techie-appealing' concept - tho > > I don't know that it ever did what I was told it did, it sure sounded > good! > > > > On 28 August 2012 02:51, Wjhonson<wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> How interesting. RQM isn't even in the online help for Universe 10, > >> but it does compile. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: David L. Wasylenko<d...@pickpro.com> > >> To: U2 Users List<u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> > >> Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 9:41 am > >> Subject: Re: [U2] [ud] Sub-second delay? > >> > >> > >> Universe only supports an integer for the SLEEP command... > >> > >> Try this in unidata: > >> 001 CRT TIMEDATE() > >> 002 FOR I=1 TO 5 > >> 003 SLEEP 0.5 > >> 004 NEXT I > >> 005 CRT TIMEDATE() > >> > >> I've no idea if it's supported... but it's worth a shot to test. > >> > >> ... david ... > >> > >> David L. Wasylenko > >> President, Pick Professionals, Inc > >> w) 314 558 1482 > >> d...@pickpro.com > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto: > >> u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] > >> On Behalf Of lar...@wcs-corp.com > >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:30 AM > >> To: U2 Users List > >> Subject: Re: [U2] [ud] Sub-second delay? > >> > >> RQM is still supported by UniData, but it's now merely a synonym for > >> SLEEP. NAP is a UV thing, with millisecond granularity. SLEEP, in > >> both UV and UD, like the *nix sleep command, only counts in whole > >> seconds. > >> > >> Larry Hiscock > >> Western Computer Services > >> > >>> RQM was supposed to be merely a command to "release quantuum" which > >>> means to pause until I come back up in the time-slicing round-robin. > >>> At some point I wonder if they didn't just replace this with a > >>> "Sleep 1" but that's not really what it was *supposed* to be. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> U2-Users mailing list > >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > >> _______________________________________________ > >> U2-Users mailing list > >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> U2-Users mailing list > >> U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > >> http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > U2-Users mailing list > > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
