Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:43:05 -0500 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> To: <freebsd-tinderbox@freebsd.org> Subject: priority question: Message-ID: <4F088429.9060205@freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
old FreeBSDer, new ports committer. I don't know where I have been
hiding, but, since FreeBSD 2.x, and commercial products based on FreeBSD
since 4.?, never knew about tinderbox.
Thomas Abthorpe had gratiously allowed me to use his tinderbox, and in
fact, has set up a new amd64 tinderbox with more horsepower.
this one can run two tinderbuilds at once.
So, my question is about priorities.
looks like all the priorities do is to decide who gets queued up next to
run.
lower priority's get queued up first.
right now, if a priority 9 and a priority 10 build are running, they
will both run (if they are the only instances), but they run at the same
os priority.
This seems fine for as single instance tinderbox, but for one that can
run multiple instances, would it be helpful if I experimented and
submitted patches to tie the build priority to nice?
this way, you 'nice {priority}.... buildscript'
so, not only is the priority 9 build going to be queued up before any
additional 10's, but it will (in theory) complete faster.
(in theory, practice and theory are the same... in practice, they are
different)
is this something that is even a reasonable thing to do?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product of 2011
* Best Intrusion Prevention Product
* Hot Company Finalist 2011
* Best Email Security Product
* Certified SNORT Integrator
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F088429.9060205>