Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/07 22:34, cga2000 wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:04:06PM EDT, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 05/10/07 11:27, william pursell wrote:
[snip]
>>> 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.
Because JES2 & JES3 suck?
> 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.
IBM's big systems are the canonical examples, but other OSs also
have batch queues. OpenVMS & OS/400 being other examples, but VMS
is also an excellent interactive OS.
>> (NO!! cron is *not* an adequate substitute for batch queues!)
>
> .. wonder if AIX has anything a bit more sophisticated than cron ..
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGQ+uxS9HxQb37XmcRAj+IAKCRKtjXQfsf4XflvDEHexGNZuYtewCeII6y
Ns95wVmPnCWwP6tBln0HQu0=
=bZFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: