From: Phil Carmody on
.lihP ,sreehC .detaeper eb ton lliw thgisrevo siht tah
t
gnitouq ciretose erom fo laitnetop lluf eht esilaer ot d
e t
s Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> writes: l s
t > On 04/15/10 06:37 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: i u
y >> Or when you post a followup you can copy the a r
l >> initial article into a decent text editor, f t
e >> compose it there (adding proper "> " prefixes
s >> and so forth if necessary), and the copy it e I
.. >> back to OE. Yes, it's some extra work, and v
>> no, ideally you shouldn't have to do it, but a .
I >> the alternative is to continue posting as you h y
>> have been and imposing that cost on the rest u
f >> of us. u g
i > o
n > This is how Keith's message should be quoted. y e
d v
I couldn't disagree more. Your approach indicates that i
t t
hat quite surprising, as otherwise you're a fairly imagina
--
I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away
-- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
From: Chris Friesen on
On 04/14/2010 04:12 PM, Phil Carmody wrote:
> .lihP ,sreehC .detaeper eb ton lliw thgisrevo siht tah
> t
> gnitouq ciretose erom fo laitnetop lluf eht esilaer ot d
> e t
> s Ian Collins <ian-news(a)hotmail.com> writes: l s
> t > On 04/15/10 06:37 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: i u
> y >> Or when you post a followup you can copy the a r
> l >> initial article into a decent text editor, f t
> e >> compose it there (adding proper "> " prefixes
> s >> and so forth if necessary), and the copy it e I
> . >> back to OE. Yes, it's some extra work, and v
> >> no, ideally you shouldn't have to do it, but a .
> I >> the alternative is to continue posting as you h y
> >> have been and imposing that cost on the rest u
> f >> of us. u g
> i > o
> n > This is how Keith's message should be quoted. y e
> d v
> I couldn't disagree more. Your approach indicates that i
> t t
> hat quite surprising, as otherwise you're a fairly imagina


I love it! :)

Chris
From: David Given on
On 14/04/10 21:00, Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
> My ISP provides these for $56 per month including UPS and
> lots of bandwidth and 2.0 GB RAM.

That's very cheap for dedicated hardware --- are you sure this isn't a
virtual machine image on a shared machine? If it is, all your
microoptimisations will be wasted, as you'll have *no* control over what
the processor is actually doing (the VM hosting software will be
performing invisible context switches and thrashing cache without your
knowledge).

If it is dedicated hardware, who's it with? I might want to use it.

--
┌─── dg@cowlark.com ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────

│ "In the beginning was the word.
│ And the word was: Content-type: text/plain" --- Unknown sage
From: Peter Olcott on

"David Given" <dg(a)cowlark.com> wrote in message
news:hq5ge3$lbt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 14/04/10 21:00, Peter Olcott wrote:
> [...]
>> My ISP provides these for $56 per month including UPS and
>> lots of bandwidth and 2.0 GB RAM.
>
> That's very cheap for dedicated hardware --- are you sure
> this isn't a
> virtual machine image on a shared machine? If it is, all
> your

Yes, I am absolutely sure of this. I even bought an
identical machine for offline testing purposes.

> microoptimisations will be wasted, as you'll have *no*
> control over what
> the processor is actually doing (the VM hosting software
> will be
> performing invisible context switches and thrashing cache
> without your
> knowledge).
>
> If it is dedicated hardware, who's it with? I might want
> to use it.
>
> --
> ???? dg(a)cowlark.com ????? http://www.cowlark.com ?????
> ?
> ? "In the beginning was the word.
> ? And the word was: Content-type: text/plain" --- Unknown
> sage


From: Stefan Monnier on
> 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.

From your description, I just can't figure out how you get to
a conclusion that you need:

Ultimately what I am looking for is a way to provide absolute
priority to one kind of job over three other kinds of jobs.

or that

The remaining three will have equal priority to each other. I want
the high priority process to get about 80% of the CPU time available
to the four processes, and the remaining three to share the remaining
20%.

I don't mean to say that the end behavior shouldn't be how you describe
it, but that these aren't the real constraints but their consequence.
If you think of the actual constraints that you're trying to solve
you'll probably find it easier to get to a solution. Among other
things, the kind of directives you need to give to the OS might be
closer to the higher-level constraints than to the lower-level
consequence described in terms of CPU percentage.

Also none of this sounds like any kind of strong real-time constraints:
you may think of it as real-time, but really all you want to do is
probably to minimize response latency. So I'd attack the problem in
a very pragmatic manner: first try it out without any tweaking, look at
the result and if you don't like it then try to improve it by tweaking
scheduler options such as nice settings (always a good start since
they're very easy to set).


Stefan