Details about how process scheduler works?
in [Unix Programming]
|
From: Vladimir Jovic on 14 Apr 2010 01:28 Peter Olcott wrote: > "Baho Utot" <baho-utot(a)invalid.com> wrote in message > news:dl7f97-o2d.ln1(a)lapu-lapu.bildanet.com... >> Peter Olcott wrote: >> >>> "Ian Collins" <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:82k4eaF126U2(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> On 04/14/10 06:28 AM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> Okay, thanks again for your help. I tried to fix my >>>>> Outlook >>>>> Express quoting so I would not have to top post, but >>>>> the >>>>> fix >>>>> did not work. >>>> So junk it and use a decent client! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ian Collins >>> I can't afford to do that I have several years worth of >>> crucial emails archived on it, and they can't be >>> exported. >> What? >> >> Your emails are being held against there will? >> >> That in its self is reason enough to shift platforms to a >> more open one >> >> > Export is broken probably because of data corruption. > > You think the outlook corrupted your emails data file and you are still using it?
From: Moi on 14 Apr 2010 08:15 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote: > "Chris Friesen" <cbf123(a)mail.usask.ca> wrote in message > news:3tednYgc4c8iDlnWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)posted.sasktel... >> On 04/13/2010 09:04 AM, Peter Olcott wrote: >> > > The first process is a web server that has been adapted so that it can > directly interface with four OCR processes or one OCR process with four > threads. > > There has also been a big debate over whether or not I should implement > the priority of the four types of OCR jobs using threads or processes. > > I am thinking that something as simple as lowering the priority of three > of the four OCR jobs might provide everything that I need since this is > a server dedicated for the sole purpose of running the web server / OCR > processes. Either that or raising the priority of the web server and one > of the four OCR processes. The first step to consider is IMHO to put the web server on a different machine. Web servers want low latency, and will always interfere with CPU or memory / buffer intensive operations. In the normal case this will be a DBMS, which is allowed to consume the extra cycles, if it is not waiting for a I/O request to complete. In your case you want the backend process to have top priority, *and* the web server to be responsive. Can not be done. HTH, AvK
From: Peter Olcott on 14 Apr 2010 09:30 "Moi" <root(a)invalid.address.org> wrote in message news:ad8e3$4bc5b1f4$5350c024$30085(a)cache100.multikabel.net... > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:10:59 -0500, Peter Olcott wrote: > >> "Chris Friesen" <cbf123(a)mail.usask.ca> wrote in message >> news:3tednYgc4c8iDlnWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d(a)posted.sasktel... >>> On 04/13/2010 09:04 AM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>> > >> >> The first process is a web server that has been adapted >> so that it can >> directly interface with four OCR processes or one OCR >> process with four >> threads. >> >> There has also been a big debate over whether or not I >> should implement >> the priority of the four types of OCR jobs using threads >> or processes. >> >> I am thinking that something as simple as lowering the >> priority of three >> of the four OCR jobs might provide everything that I need >> since this is >> a server dedicated for the sole purpose of running the >> web server / OCR >> processes. Either that or raising the priority of the web >> server and one >> of the four OCR processes. > > The first step to consider is IMHO to put the web server > on a different machine. > Web servers want low latency, and will always interfere > with CPU or memory / buffer > intensive operations. In the normal case this will be a > DBMS, which is allowed to > consume the extra cycles, if it is not waiting for a I/O > request to complete. > In your case you want the backend process to have top > priority, *and* the web > server to be responsive. Can not be done. > > HTH, > AvK The hardware will be a single PENTIUM 4 computer with 2.0 GB RAM, this design constraint is immutable for the foreseeable future.
From: Trevor Hemsley on 14 Apr 2010 13:18 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:30:07 UTC in comp.os.linux.development.system, "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > The hardware will be a single PENTIUM 4 computer with 2.0 GB > RAM, this design constraint is immutable for the foreseeable > future. Did this thread start on April 1st? -- Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com
From: Keith Thompson on 14 Apr 2010 14:37
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> writes: > "Ian Collins" <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:82k4eaF126U2(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 04/14/10 06:28 AM, Peter Olcott wrote: >>> Okay, thanks again for your help. I tried to fix my >>> Outlook >>> Express quoting so I would not have to top post, but the >>> fix >>> did not work. >> >> So junk it and use a decent client! > > I can't afford to do that I have several years worth of > crucial emails archived on it, and they can't be exported. How does that prevent you from using a decent client for posting to Usenet? There's no rule that says you have to throw away Outlook Express when you start using some other piece of software, or that you have to use the same client for e-mail and Usenet. Or when you post a followup you can copy the initial article into a decent text editor, compose it there (adding proper "> " prefixes and so forth if necessary), and the copy it back to OE. Yes, it's some extra work, and no, ideally you shouldn't have to do it, but the alternative is to continue posting as you have been and imposing that cost on the rest of us. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u(a)mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister" |