Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:04:06PM EDT, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/10/07 11:27, william pursell wrote:
> > Tyler Smith wrote:
> >> Second, and more to the (OT) point, what does screen do better than
> >> multiple xterms, or shell-mode in Emacs?
> >>
> > Possibly the nicest feature of screen is the ability to
> > detach it, and the ability to attach multiple times. For
> > example, you can run a screen session, start a shell,
> > walk across the room (or the country), attach to the
> > session and interact with the original shell. Or, you
> > can open your file and start editing, detach from
> > the session and log out, go home, ssh back to the
> > box at work and reattach to the screen session and
> > be sitting in the editor where you left it. It provides
> > continuity by allowing you to leave your shells running
> > for months at a time without having to put those
> > phenomenally lame signs on your monitor that say,
> > "please don't log me out, I'm running a simulation
> > that may take a while and have to lock up this terminal
> > because I don't know any better."
>
> Yes, but competent OSs have batch queues for running such jobs. Why
> Unix has never had such a capability is beyond my understanding.
Not an authority on these matters but maybe this may have to do with the
fact that the hardware was designed to do heavy batch processing in the
first place. And so the OS .. and later .. the applications followed
suit.
Assuming what I have in mind is an example of a "competent OS"
:-)
So your question might be turned around as in .. how come an OS like
MVS, for instance .. has/had at least four "job schedulers" that I can
think of off the top of my head .. and all of them save one from
third-party vendors.
It's just about all these machines do but they do it very well.
So if you are serious about running hundreds of jobs every night that
basically open a bunch of files do a few million I/O's and close the
files .. all without any form of human interaction .. you probably want
one of those.
> (NO!! cron is *not* an adequate substitute for batch queues!)
.. wonder if AIX has anything a bit more sophisticated than cron ..
Thanks,
cga
Reply to: