| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 21:17, Andrea Ferraris wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi all! |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Sorry for the double post, but at the first one I went wrong with the |
| 6 |
> thread. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> it's some time that I'm wandering if there are already some software |
| 9 |
> or bunch of scripts to adapt the Gentoo compilations to the system load. |
| 10 |
> It is, is would be a great thing if the compilation of new or updated |
| 11 |
> packages could be at lower priority when the system load is high and |
| 12 |
> at a higher priority when the system load is lower. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think that could be made with some scripts and the nice command, but |
| 15 |
> I don't know if something like that already exists. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Somebody knows? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Best regards, |
| 21 |
> Andrea Ferraris |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> --- |
| 24 |
> If this message isn't electronically signed (digital authentication), |
| 25 |
> then it could come from anybody, also from who appears as the sender. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think it's not too much difficult to done it with a "bash script" |
| 30 |
launched by "crontab" that adjust some tty niceness with "snice" |
| 31 |
according to system load check with "uptime"... |
| 32 |
You should note that play with priority is really strange if you use |
| 33 |
a preemptive kernel (if you have choosed the option in a 2.6.x kernel). |
| 34 |
So if it's a server, i think you shouldn't have a preemptive one. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
TuTTle |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
PGP/GPG Public Key |
| 43 |
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x63DB4770 |
| 44 |
Key fingerprint = 4766 39E7 F30A FA2C 71A0 C6C8 1D54 72F5 63DB 4770 |
Archives