Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:02:04 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim <dpilgrim@uswest.net> To: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> Cc: "Mark S. Reichman" <mark@borg.com>, "Viren R. Shah" <viren@rstcorp.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SETI@home has teams now! Message-ID: <374B01BC.EBD00301@uswest.net> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990525102604.26781A-100000@beelzebubba.sysabend.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" wrote: > Darren Pilgrim wrote, >> idprio seems to have the effect I was aiming for--there's hardly any >> performance hit on the rest of the system/software--but the load is >> considerably higher than I had wanted for running it during business >> hours. I think idprio has a good chance of working. Thanks. > > Load does not tell you a whole lot about performance if processes are > prioritized appropriately. Who cares if setiathome is waiting for > processor cycles (adding to load), but not taking any time away from > processes in the "foreground" (not really impacting CPU usage of > work-related stuff)? Just because your load is always >1 when > setiathome is quietly waiting to take otherwise unused CPU cycles does > not mean other processes are losing any. > > That all said, I do kill setiathome during work hours (on work > machines). However, it has nothing to do with CPU usage. setiathome > eats about 14 MB of memory. On my 64 MB RAM PC here at work, that's > enough to cause some swapping, and _that_ can hit performance. Perhaps that's the problem then. Whatever the problem is, I began running into performance problems while s@h was running. > -- > Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?374B01BC.EBD00301>