🚀 go-pugleaf

sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) wrote:
>
>when a process is running over a uniprocessor, it is the only program
>running--until it terminates, relinqishes, or is preempted.  does this
>make the system "unitasking"?  no.  eventually the process will
>terminate or relinquish (or will be terminated), and eventually
>another process will run.  the goal of multiprogramming
>(i.e. multitasking) is to keep the CPU maximally utilized.  whether
>this is accomplished by allowing one process all the ticks, or all of
>the processes one tick each, is irrelevant, as long as all the ticks
>are utilized.

Perhaps it would better to say that you have a multitasking environment
temporarily reduced to unitasking.  It could also be argued that you
have a multitasking environment with a bug.  Certainly, if maximising
CPU utilization is your highest priority and compute bound jobs are
the norm then permitting a unitasking state is a reasonable design
decision. (I don't compute any models of thunderstorms myself.:)

>
>you must realize that i may be approaching this from a broader
>viewpoint than you are.
>

Are you saying I have an agenda?   :)

BTW -- Can I have one of those machines you get to play with?

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
Buy Free UNIX!
Microsoft is prohibited from examining any packet containing data
originating on any machine which I am using. (Not that I can stop them.)