Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021125185701.02a73ea8@pop3.cris.com> X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:00:40 -0800 To: thomas From: Randall R Schulz Subject: Re: nice really nice? In-Reply-To: <614069953.20021125191423@huno.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Thomas, One thing to keep in mind is that while Unix (and work-alikes) has a -20 (best scheduling priority) ... +20 (worst priority) range, Windows has only the six distinct levels. I don't know how Cygwin maps the Unix nice values to the Windows priorities, offhand. Probably it's a linear mapping. I haven't had a chance to read the information about scheduling in Windows, but I will. Thanks for referring me to it. Randy At 10:14 2002-11-25, you wrote: >I'm also wondering what nice really does in cygwin. Look at the >following test: > >$ time mkisofs -J -R -l * 2>/dev/null | nice -19 dd of=/dev/null >real 0m7.482s > >$ time mkisofs -J -R -l * 2>/dev/null | nice -1 dd of=/dev/null >real 0m7.384s > >$ time mkisofs -J -R -l * 2>/dev/null | nice -0 dd of=/dev/null >real 0m7.419s > >$ time mkisofs -J -R -l * 2>/dev/null | nice --1 dd of=/dev/null >real 1m51.516s > >$ time mkisofs -J -R -l * 2>/dev/null | nice --19 dd of=/dev/null >real 1m51.760s -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/