On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:53 +0000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 11:07 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>
> > But your implication here is valid. It is better to fiddle with the
> > dynamic priorities than with nice as this leaves nice for its primary
> > purpose of enabling the sysadmin to effect the allocation of CPU
> > resources based on external considerations.
>
> I don't understand. It _is_ the administrator fiddling with nice based
> on external considerations. It just steadies the administrator's hand.
When extended to groups, I see your point. The admin would lose his
ability to apportion bandwidth _within_ the group because he's already
turned his only knob. That is going to be just as much of a problem for
other methods though, and is just a question of how much complexity you
want to pay to achieve fine grained control.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
