Campbell Ritchie (63) [Avatar] Offline
#1
§13.1.3 pages 286‑287.
I tried the yes program you suggested last night, and got use averages up to about 11.09 for all three numbers using the top instruction. That is with a 4‑core Pentium. See attachment.

“Nice to see yer, to see yer nice.” was a catchphrase of the late Sir Bruce Forsyth. I also tried man nice, which referred me to
Full documentation at: <http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/nice> or available locally via: info '(coreutils) nice invocation'
…so I tried the local version and it says,
. . . Niceness values range at least from -20 (process has high priority and gets more resources, thus slowing down other processes) through 19 (process has lower priority . . .
(The two versions say exactly the same). Are you sure it is −19...20 as you said on page 285?
David Clinton (80) [Avatar] Offline
#2
Campbell Ritchie wrote:§13.1.3 pages 286‑287.
I tried the yes program you suggested last night, and got use averages up to about 11.09 for all three numbers using the top instruction. That is with a 4‑core Pentium. See attachment.


Could be because you were running so many instances at the same time you built up quite a queue for CPU time.

“Nice to see yer, to see yer nice.” was a catchphrase of the late Sir Bruce Forsyth.


I never had the pleasure. Although my parents did once take me to see The Two Ronnies at London Palladium - does that count?

I also tried man nice, which referred me to
Full documentation at: <http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/nice> or available locally via: info '(coreutils) nice invocation'
…so I tried the local version and it says,
. . . Niceness values range at least from -20 (process has high priority and gets more resources, thus slowing down other processes) through 19 (process has lower priority . . .
(The two versions say exactly the same). Are you sure it is −19...20 as you said on page 285?


You're correct. I think I was half conscious of that mistake as I was writing it. Corrected now.
Thanks,
Campbell Ritchie (63) [Avatar] Offline
#3
Thank you smilie
The Two Ronnies were a lot better than Bruce Forsyth.
Campbell Ritchie (63) [Avatar] Offline
#4
David Clinton wrote:. . . you were running so many instances at the same time you built up quite a queue for CPU time. . . .
That sounds a good explanation. Thank you.