🚀 go-pugleaf

In <840142188snz@copse.demon.co.uk>, Eoin Woods <Eoin@copse.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I am having a few "interesting" times with a DOS program which I use (under
>Warp) to connect to my ISP (it's a bundle of software based on KA9Q for those
>interested).
>
>The program is a *terrible* CPU hog - when it is running it takes more and
>more of the CPU until the rest of the system is crawling along.  Is there
>a way of limiting a DOS program's share of the CPU under OS/2?  All the stuff
>I've read is about giving DOS programs MORE - my problem is the opposite! I 
>understand that given OS/2's CPU scheduling algorithm the more CPU something
>asks for, the more (over time) it will be given.  Is there a way of putting
>an upper bound on it?
>
>A secondary question is about stability.  Now and again (usually when the
>phone line is hung up abruptly) this program gets in a tangle and corrupts
>some internal data structures.  Usually this causes a trap and OS/2 stops
>the program (as you would expect).  A few days ago, this happened again, and
>the program froze OS/2 SOLID! (No Ctl-Alt-Del or Ctl-Alt-W to WatchCat 
>possible).  How can this happen?  I've had LOTS of system hangups and freezes
>when running MS Office programs in seamless mode (Word6 being the prime
>culprit) - but a DOS program??  Is there something terribly wrong with my
>system?
>
>If a DOS program can (1) Hog the CPU and (2) Hang OS/2 solid, this doesn't
>say much for the OS/2 crash protection!  My GOOD experiences with it over
>the last few years suggest otherwise - which is why I'm after some advice
>as to anything I may have done to destabilise it!

I'm not the type who can answer your question from a technical standpoint, but 
I don't believe that this app you describe debunks the notion of crash protection. 
There are *always* programs which can cause trouble for a system (ANY system, 
as I have seen written in the newsgroups).  You already commented on how many 
times OS/2 Has saved your skin . . .  

Without any knowledge regarding the app, I can only say what makes sense to me - 
shoot the program and go native!  Why stick with something which is lousy??

Kenward

Eoin Woods <Eoin@copse.demon.co.uk> writes
>I am having a few "interesting" times with a DOS program which I use (under
>Warp) to connect to my ISP (it's a bundle of software based on KA9Q for those
>interested).
>
>The program is a *terrible* CPU hog

Any DOS comms program will hog the CPU - there's little that can be done
about it, except that installing Ray Gwinn's SIO drivers will improve
the performance a lot.

If you are using the KA9Q package supplied by Demon, you can replace the
online program NET.EXE with an OS/2 port of the same program available
on Demon's ftp server.  This actually works better than the DOS one (has
some extra goodies and bugs fixed), has been kept up to date with the
idiosyncracies of Demon's Ascend servers, and of course leaves plenty of
CPU time for other apps.

<URL:ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/os2/netos2/ka9q217d-os2.270.zip>

-- 
Anahata    -----------------------------------------------------------------
*  Anahata@freereed.demon.co.uk  *  anahata@cix.compulink.co.uk             *
*  0976 263827 (Orange)          *  http://www.freereed.demon.co.uk         *
 -----  "Momentum: what you give a person when they are going away"  -------

In article <840142188snz@copse.demon.co.uk>
   Eoin Woods <Eoin@copse.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I am having a few "interesting" times with a DOS program which I use (under
>Warp) to connect to my ISP (it's a bundle of software based on KA9Q for those
>interested).
>
>The program is a *terrible* CPU hog - when it is running it takes more and
>more of the CPU until the rest of the system is crawling along.  Is there
>a way of limiting a DOS program's share of the CPU under OS/2?  All the stuff
>I've read is about giving DOS programs MORE - my problem is the opposite! I
>understand that given OS/2's CPU scheduling algorithm the more CPU something
>asks for, the more (over time) it will be given.  Is there a way of putting
>an upper bound on it?
>
The quick fix is to upgrade to the OS/2-specific port of KA9Q, available 
on ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/os2/netos2.

For DOS programs in general, open the settings notebook and go to the 
DOS settings screen. Somewhere on there you will find the 
IDLE_SENSITIVITY, which defaults to 75. I have found quite a few DOS 
programs (including this text editor) which really hog the CPU at that 
setting. Turn it down to 10 or 20 and things will improve. Running the 
pulse.exe CPU monitor is useful for checking this - it will show when 
something is taking all the CPU time and you can usually work out which 
program it is by simple elimination. As a guide, many of the problem DOS 
programs use a mouse.....

Dave
--
djh@sectel.com
Tel +44 1285 655 766
Fax +44 1285 655 595

Crash protection is one thing - what you describe is another...

In practice you may find that under Warp V3 you can improve
performance by putting a

PRIORITY=DYNAMIC

in your config.sys file just under the Priority=DISK-IO line
(Sorry can't remember what it is exactly right now)

Don't ask for documentation on this - I don't think it
exists in Warp docs.

It helped me. The dynamic priority should give a dynamic
boost to system funtions such as I/O when they need it and
to boost others when required.

I found it helped me quite a bit.

-john-
webWorks

little <ww@dasl.demon.co.uk> writes
>PRIORITY=DYNAMIC
>
>in your config.sys file just under the Priority=DISK-IO line
>(Sorry can't remember what it is exactly right now)
>
>It helped me. 

I'm surprised it made any difference as I thought DYNAMIC was the
default.  PRIORITY=FIXED is certainly not recommended except for running
a real-time application where you are quite sure you know what you are
doing.

-- 
Anahata    -----------------------------------------------------------------
*  Anahata@freereed.demon.co.uk  *  anahata@cix.compulink.co.uk             *
*  0976 263827 (Orange)          *  http://www.freereed.demon.co.uk         *
 -----  "Momentum: what you give a person when they are going away"  -------

I don't know - I read that priority = fixed was the
default and changing it helped me ... I got the info
from a fine tuning faq so you could be right. I've
not seen anything to suggest it's a bad thing to do
and I did feel an improvement -perhaps it was just
subjective.

-john-
webWorks