[RC5] Re: loadwatch and dnetc
Richard Lee King Jr.
eunuch57 at worldnet.att.net
Thu Nov 25 08:46:10 EST 1999
don't know about nt but on 98 if dnet is running at all
the cpu load is 99%. running dnet should always
make load monitoring think the system is maxed out.
if you are using dnet in a distributed load network,
i could see where it could cause a problem when
selecting which box to spawn a process on, but
i don't see the point of using load watch unless
you want to kill the client when ANY process
is started. then we get back to the fact that an
idle client only takes up a couple k of memory
and a few hundred cpu cycles per second. if
all this is still a problem then maybe its time
to look for a less resource critical lan to use.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean-Jack M. Riethoven <pow at ebi.ac.uk>
To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 5:08 AM
Subject: RE: [RC5] Re: loadwatch and dnetc
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 04:57:06PM +0200, Ville Nummela wrote:
> > > I've used loadwatch to pause the rc5 client while the
> > computer is doing
> > Rc5 or dnetc already runs at the lowest priority unless
> > you configured
> > it not to do so. So what sense does it make to use yet another tool to
> > control resources?
> When running dnet on a machine that is being used as a LSF (or whatever
> other) load sharing client it is a must. Else the machine would have
> high load averages all the time, and since these are taking into account
> whether or not to spawn a job to that machine....
> With loadwatch you can curtail dnet's activity in such a way that you
> can shut it down whenever the load becomes too high (for jobs to spawn).
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5