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: <5.1.0.14.2.20021125191218.028d9b20@pop3.cris.com> X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:19:06 -0800 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Randall R Schulz Subject: Re: nice really nice? In-Reply-To: <1038276393.23528.366.camel@lifelesswks> References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021125185701 DOT 02a73ea8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20021125185701 DOT 02a73ea8 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Robert, Well, I guess it's a good thing I sent that to the list (given that I stated inaccurate information), but I thought I was replying to Thomas privately. (He used that "thomas " address even though the message to which I replied was sent to me only--I just hit reply without looking at the return address, since we've been working on the problem with "mkisofs" piped to "cdrecord.") Anyway, thanks for clearing up the Windows priority misinformation I sent out. I guess if I would have read the MSDN tech not Thomas referred me to first, I wouldn't have said that... Randall Schulz Mountain View, CA USA At 18:06 2002-11-25, Robert Collins wrote: >On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 14:00, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > 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. > >Windows has (offhand) ~ 30 scheduling levels. It has priority classes, >which 'group' processes, and then relative priorities within each >class.IIRC you can check sched,cc via CVS to see the actual mapping I >used, it's not linear as such, but nearly so. > >Thomas, > >Those tests show nothing other than the time it takes to push the iso >through to a bitbucket. Unless there is serious other load on the CPU, the >time *should* be constant. > >Rob -- 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/