home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.misc:4135 comp.unix.questions:13338 comp.sys.sgi:16371 comp.graphics:11835
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.sgi,comp.graphics
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!griffin!kurango!anthony
- From: anthony@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au (Anthony Thyssen)
- Subject: Re: Interactive vs Background users
- Message-ID: <1992Nov13.042252.11811@kurango.cit.gu.edu.au>
- Organization: Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
- References: <1dsh2fINNeok@manuel.anu.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 04:22:52 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- aps583@huxley.anu.edu.au (Anthony P Scott) writes:
- | The problem is that they are only used
- | for a small part of the day and certainly not at night. WE wish to
- | soak up the excess CPU cycles by running GAUSSIAN and other cpu
- | intensive programs in the background.
- |
- | Unfortunately when an interactive user comes along the terminal response
- | is terrible, they get upset and we are forced to kill the background
- | proccess.
- |
- If you nice the background process (heavly) you will find that the
- backgroud program only runs when no other process is available.
-
- IE: instead for running
-
- gaussian &
-
- run
-
- nice -15 gaussian &
-
-
- This puts the programs prioity very low. so if the machine is not busy
- it will get run otherwise it will wait until the cpu is free.
-
-
- Anthony Thyssen - (SysProg @ Griffith University) anthony@cit.gu.edu.au
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ``Never argue with a computer.'' -- Avon, Blake's 7
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-