|Date: ||Mon, 14 May 2001 15:54:36 -0700|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: Unix performance question|
|In-Reply-To: ||<3B005F94.firstname.lastname@example.org>; from roland.rashleigh-berry@VIRGIN.NET
on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:43:32PM +0100|
|Content-Type: ||multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:43:32PM +0100, Roland (roland.rashleigh-berry@VIRGIN.NET) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > > Prioritizing jobs with nice will often fail spectacularly in producing
> > > > any reasonable results when I/O contention is a bottleneck. 'nice' is
> > > > more useful for rationalizing CPU-bound processes.
> > >
> > > According to "iostat", disk contention was not the problem.
> > Post output.
> Are you bOrg?
No. I'm trying to help you resolve your issue. I need data to do this,
and you're the only person in a position to do this.
If you don't care for assistance, I'll attend to something else.
You're currently wasting both of our time.
Karsten M. Self <email@example.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal