Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:36:42AM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>:
> >
> > On 05/11/07 12:49, s. keeling wrote:
> > > Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>:
> > >> Yes, but competent OSs have batch queues for running such jobs. Why
> > >> Unix has never had such a capability is beyond my understanding.
> > >
> > > man batch: at, batch, atq, atrm - queue, examine or delete jobs for
> > > later execution.
> > >
> > >> (NO!! cron is *not* an adequate substitute for batch queues!)
> > >
> > > cron's for regularly repeated jobs. batch and at are for sequential
> > > job scheduling.
> >
> > How do you create more queues than just "b"?
>
> I'm serious: why? There's only so much resources available in a
> machine. Do you want a job to complete asap, or do you want a number
> of jobs to complete asap? This is the high ground of performance
> analysis we're fiddling with here.
>
What if there is more than one processor? What if some are IO bound and
others compute-bound? It would be great if you have an IO bound job
running and an idle processor to be able to select a compute-bound job
to run on the spare processor.
Tonight I'll read up on VMS.
Doug.
Reply to: