1 |
I *think* it should go to user mailing list, forums, or somewhere else |
2 |
where it's not [OT]. |
3 |
|
4 |
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 06:47 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: |
5 |
> So I set PORTAGE_NICENESS to 19 in /etc/make.conf on my primary gentoo |
6 |
> desktop so I could do emerges in the background and still use my box... |
7 |
> [...] |
8 |
> So I'm starting to question how useful PORTAGE_NICENESS actually is... If |
9 |
> the system is pegged under niceness 19 and 0, but 0 completes in 10 minutes, |
10 |
> why would PORTAGE_NICENESS benefit me in any way? |
11 |
nice, renice, PORTAGE_NICENESS (they're all the same) affect the way |
12 |
kernel allocates CPU resources for running processes. Under normal |
13 |
operating conditions, nice'd processes will get less CPU time (with nice |
14 |
-n 19 ~1% of nice -n 0) than remaining nice 0 desktop processes. |
15 |
|
16 |
It is possible to run CPU intensive jobs with 98% of CPU time when |
17 |
other, competing processes are "nice". Basically, kernel will get the |
18 |
nice processes out of the way if something else wants the CPU (not |
19 |
completely, look around kerneltrap.org to see how exactly it works in |
20 |
different schedulers) |
21 |
|
22 |
What probably happened in your case was you run out of RAM. Than, your |
23 |
machine started to use VERY slow swap space to run applications from, |
24 |
and it may render some RAM-hogs (kde, e17, gnome) unresponsive. If you |
25 |
are running an memory limited box, you may consider getting rid of -pipe |
26 |
from CFLAGS, and setting MAKEOPTS="-j1". No niceness would help if your |
27 |
system is waiting for swap space accesses. |
28 |
|
29 |
Or just buy more RAM. Modules are getting ridiculusly cheap compared to |
30 |
prices from last two years. I'd consider extra 128-256M for each thread, |
31 |
you use to emerge stuff from, sufficient. And with linux using memory |
32 |
very efficiently, more won't hurt either (and will likely decrease |
33 |
application startup times significantly). |
34 |
|
35 |
Tomasz |