| 1 |
As I see it you there is no need to change it |
| 2 |
dynamicly: with a high nice value a process runs |
| 3 |
slowly with a high system load, and faster with a low |
| 4 |
system load. So adjusting the niceness to the system |
| 5 |
load wouldn't help much (if at all). |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Leon Schoorl |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
--- Andrea Ferraris <andrea_ferraris@××××××.it> wrote: |
| 10 |
> Matthew Baxa wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > # PORTAGE_NICENESS provides a default increment to |
| 13 |
> emerge's niceness |
| 14 |
> > level. |
| 15 |
> > # Note: This is an increment. Running emerge |
| 16 |
> in a niced environment |
| 17 |
> > will |
| 18 |
> > # reduce it further. Default is unset. |
| 19 |
> > #PORTAGE_NICENESS=3 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Thx. |
| 22 |
> Yes. But, if I understand well that it's not |
| 23 |
> something of dynamic, that |
| 24 |
> could increase the unniceness of the emerging if the |
| 25 |
> system load |
| 26 |
> decreases or further increase the niceness in case |
| 27 |
> of higher system load. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Andrea Ferraris |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> If this message isn't electronically signed (digital |
| 34 |
> authentication), |
| 35 |
> then it could come from anybody, also from who |
| 36 |
> appears as the sender. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com |
Archives