home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ucbvax!UH01.Colorado.EDU!DWING
- From: DWING@UH01.Colorado.EDU ("would rather be skiing ...")
- Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
- Subject: Re: TUNING - QUANTUM SYSGEM parameter
- Message-ID: <01GRAF7BWS3M00JZ53@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
- Date: 18 Nov 92 14:44:15 GMT
- Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
- Distribution: world
- Organization: The Internet
- Lines: 23
-
- Don Stokes, (DS555), <don@zl2tnm.gen.nz>, writes:
-
- >pihlab@hhcs.gov.au writes:
- >> 2. What are some reasonable starting QUANTUM settings for the following
- >> machines:
- [...]
- >Also, the calculation was a bit off for V5.2(& 5.3?), because under these
- >versions, a process would not preempt another unless it was 3 or more
- >priority levels above the current process. This has now been fixed, but
- >with those versions, knocking QUANTUM right down would have helped a lot,
- >effectively providing a form of preemption, although not nearly as good
- >as real preemption as done in current and earlier versions. Could this
- >be why you got such an improvement by diddling QUANTUM before?
-
- Don is referring to DEC's handling, within the scheduler, of the SYSGEN special
- parameter PRIORITY_OFFSET. In "some" versions of VMS V5.x, a value of 0 for
- PRIORITY_OFFSET actually means 4 (or 3). DEC has reverted to 0 meaning 0,
- which means that a process with a (current) priority which is greater than
- the currently executing process will preempt the currently executing process.
-
- -Dan Wing, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet (DGW11)
- Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver
-
-