🚀 go-pugleaf

Derek S. Haining, DEREK@MAX.U.WASHINGTON.EDU, writes:

>YES!  We have.  Now, although I haven't looked in the solution provided by
>Pekka, I did look into this technology quite a lot back in earlier versions
>of VMS (T5.2 and some before this.)  My thought was to be able to restrict
>CPU-hogging batch jobs to a subset of the available CPUs, thus providing
>better response time to the interactive users.   (See, we could raise QUANTUM
>up (good for a vector CPU) and not feel the effects of multiple batch jobs
>so much.)

I'm really looking forward to see how VMS V6.0's implementation of class
scheduling is going to work with ideas like this.  We could certainly take
good advantage of it here.  And in combined academic/administrative settings
you could "allow" the students 10% of the CPU and all those administrative
people the rest!!  ;-)

>Anyone read this far?   :)

("It's the right one, baby.")

"Uh-huh."

-Dan Wing, dwing@uh01.colorado.edu or wing_d@ucolmcc.bitnet (DGW11)
 Systems Administrator, University Hospital, Denver