|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > July 2006 > user priority
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| HI,
is is possible to set a priority for the specific user under Solaris
10?
Thanks
| |
| Logan Shaw 2006-07-07, 7:32 am |
| Lyuda wrote:
> is is possible to set a priority for the specific user under Solaris
> 10?
Do you mean a priority for the CPU scheduler?
- Logan
| |
|
| Yes,
I want some users always have lower priority to execute their jobs
Lyuda
Logan Shaw wrote:
> Lyuda wrote:
>
> Do you mean a priority for the CPU scheduler?
>
> - Logan
| |
| Dave Hinz 2006-07-07, 1:21 pm |
| On 7 Jul 2006 09:22:39 -0700, Lyuda <ls303@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Yes,
> I want some users always have lower priority to execute their jobs
> Lyuda
Does "nice" do what you're trying to do?
| |
| Doug Freyburger 2006-07-07, 1:21 pm |
| Dave Hinz wrote:
> Lyuda wrote:
>
>
> Does "nice" do what you're trying to do?
nice is available to users other than root when it is used to set
processes
to lower priority. And note that jobs run in the background
automatically
get nice'd. The problem is it doesn't have as much effect as some
want.
The system will run any runnable job as long as there is any idle time
and
on any system not flooded with work stuff progresses along looking like
it isn't getting any lower priority.
The next step up on Solaris would be priocntl which is restricted to
root because abusing it can majorly screw a running system. If nice
isn't enough chances are priorities aren't really the problem and what
is needed is to step back and rethink the issues.
| |
| Michael Vilain 2006-07-07, 1:21 pm |
| User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.1 (Intel Mac OS X)
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Face: 'sf@,"O{C]yOJr<81lbJ;%]]jY%:%{0B0W;V$SG5{J=_k=50)Vw7^jDa^qf5!
D5G}nglJu9#DWgf<a?mECDZ[4f9bn.t>3ka%(BLcGvS?V`YP5Ccb8w^sx#Vk5fg`ufx'
~By^(!Xdh^J-ap9e:$E(G<\|i6'*FtHc$?A_UJdB$c/HpJ^(OCnn42.
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:14:36 -0700
Message-ID: <vilain-871D52.10143607072006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.155.172
X-Trace: sv3- aiYef0AnEGkLpqhBpTjDYtWvWr0PHXhSWu19sR+9
kk9xIxEnQzLOUEgcseJFUp9blyRDxa+3OE1gFYj!
efnQJvexS5e+D7oQg8g0s7brC9xXJQtWFtHvymIn
BribQtQguZTdKrUfZ7gmW+/FptbaTb3Hv58S!6yztFc8Ef6UEdu2rCoOdEA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.unix.admin:122253
In article <1152290678.977977.190600@k73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> nice is available to users other than root when it is used to set
> processes
> to lower priority. And note that jobs run in the background
> automatically
> get nice'd. The problem is it doesn't have as much effect as some
> want.
> The system will run any runnable job as long as there is any idle time
> and
> on any system not flooded with work stuff progresses along looking like
> it isn't getting any lower priority.
>
> The next step up on Solaris would be priocntl which is restricted to
> root because abusing it can majorly screw a running system. If nice
> isn't enough chances are priorities aren't really the problem and what
> is needed is to step back and rethink the issues.
Or move to OpenVMS, which can do this in their authorization files.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
| |
| Logan Shaw 2006-07-10, 1:28 am |
| Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> nice is available to users other than root when it is used to set
> processes
> to lower priority. And note that jobs run in the background
> automatically
> get nice'd. The problem is it doesn't have as much effect as some
> want.
> The system will run any runnable job as long as there is any idle time
> and
> on any system not flooded with work stuff progresses along looking like
> it isn't getting any lower priority.
Well, first of all, if the run queue has nothing but low-priority jobs
in it, it doesn't necessarily make sense to let the processor sit idle.
But second of all, I think we've mostly reached a new phase in computing
where the old priority mechanisms don't make sense like they used to.
CPUs are so fast these days that often they're not the only significant
bottleneck. Often, disk or network I/O is the bottleneck, or maybe it's
total RAM vs. working set size, or maybe it's cache.
I could imagine it being helpful to have an operating system that tries
to minimize the impact that low-priority jobs have on high-priority jobs
in all these areas. That would mean such things as blocking low-priority
threads if there is significant memory pressure (to keep low-priority
threads from growing the working set size to be bigger than RAM),
prioritizing I/O requests and/or throttling I/O requests that were
triggered by low-priority threads, and maybe even tweaking the
scheduler to not schedule low-priority threads until the system has
been idle for a while so that they don't pollute the cache as much.
However, something tells me few OS vendors want to bother with these
enhancements, since they really only benefit "junk" processes and
since computer power is just not a very scarce commodity these days.
- Logan
| |
| Doug Freyburger 2006-07-10, 1:19 pm |
| Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> Well, first of all, if the run queue has nothing but low-priority jobs
> in it, it doesn't necessarily make sense to let the processor sit idle.
>
> But second of all, I think we've mostly reached a new phase in computing
> where the old priority mechanisms don't make sense like they used to.
Agreed. I no longer think that doing CPU throttling is sufficient.
> CPUs are so fast these days that often they're not the only significant
> bottleneck. Often, disk or network I/O is the bottleneck, or maybe it's
> total RAM vs. working set size, or maybe it's cache.
There's also DMA bandwidth for transfer intensive jobs like backup
to tape, interupt timespace for interupt intensive work like large
network transfers over chatty-giga-bit ethernet and so on.
> I could imagine it being helpful to have an operating system that tries
> to minimize the impact that low-priority jobs have on high-priority jobs
> in all these areas. That would mean such things as blocking low-priority
> threads if there is significant memory pressure (to keep low-priority
> threads from growing the working set size to be bigger than RAM),
> prioritizing I/O requests and/or throttling I/O requests that were
> triggered by low-priority threads, and maybe even tweaking the
> scheduler to not schedule low-priority threads until the system has
> been idle for a while so that they don't pollute the cache as much.
>
> However, something tells me few OS vendors want to bother with these
> enhancements, since they really only benefit "junk" processes and
> since computer power is just not a very scarce commodity these days.
Thinking through various types of throttling would be beneficial.
|
|
|
|
|