Re: Niced cron jobs
On 26-Jun-99, 21:37 (CDT), Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> agreed. i have no objection at all to making it a configurable option.
> in fact, i'm in favour of such things - the more we make it easy for
> users to tweak and fine-tune their machines, the better.
>
> my objection was only against forcing this behaviour on everyone.
> i don't even care very much what the default is (although i prefer
> NICENESS=0), as long as it's a conffile that persists across upgrades.
This is the second time you've used the term "forcing". Nobody (and
certainly not me) is forcing anybody to do anything. /etc/crontab
is a conffile. Always has been, always will be[1]. If you've got a
heavily loaded server, my guess is that you've probably also mucked with
/etc/crontab, in which case you'll never see the change. If you do, then
remove it, and it will never bug you again. (Ok, you'll sometimes get a
notification about updating a modified conffile when you upgrade cron.
"Just say NO.")
<rant> I'm getting extremely annoyed with the many people who want
configuration files delivered tuned for their specific situation without
any thought at all about the general consequences. It's called a
"configuration file" for a reason, folks. The whole conffile mechanism
was created so that people could have customized configurations and not
lose them. The tools are there: learn to use them.</rant>
In the meantime, I'm going to play around with the effects of "nice -10"
on commands that whack the disk (aka "checksecurity") and decide for
myself if the benefit exists, and exceeds the downside issue that Craig
has raised.
Steve
Reply to: