[RC5] DNETC is not backing down with CST needs processing power

Philippe Faure philippe at faure.ca
Thu Apr 14 19:32:35 EDT 2011


Yes, the computer department is aware of it, and have approval.

Philippe

Quoting bert <bertodell at suddenlink.net>:

> If you are not the owner of that server and are trying to run dnetc on
> it,I do hope you have permission before you even think of installing it
> on that server,you might be opening a can of worms(wouldn't want you to
> get fired or kicked out of school,etc).
>
> Bert
>
> On 4/14/2011 5:13 PM, Philippe Faure wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yes, the problem is that the process is run by another user.  I don't
>> have access to the admin account to run DNETC as a service.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion to run with fewer than the total number of
>> processors.  I am now doing that and it seems to be working.  What I
>> meant by backing off was "pausing" when the other process starts.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Jeff Lawson<bovine at distributed.net>:
>>
>>> Are you saying that the "Pause when running" feature doesn't work
>>> because the process is running as another user?  If so, have you tried
>>> installing dnetc as a service?
>>>
>>> When you say you have backed off usage of some of the CPU, does that
>>> mean you have configured dnetc to use fewer processors than the total
>>> available?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Philippe Faure<philippe at faure.ca>  wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have a large server (24 logical CPU's) that can run DNETC, but for
>>>> some reason when an application is started by someone else, DNETC
>>>> doesn't recognize this, and doesn't relinquish the CPU processing time.
>>>>
>>>> The software is called CST (http://www.cst.com/).  I was wondering if
>>>> someone else has come across this issue?
>>>>
>>>> Since the user running CST and the DNETC user are not the same, I
>>>> can't check from processes manually.  This is happening on an Windows
>>>> Server 2008 R2.
>>>>
>>>> For now, I have backed off the user of all CPU, but this is a
>>>> sub-optimal solution.  If someone else has come across this issue, I
>>>> would like to know how they solved it.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>> Philippe
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rc5 mailing list
>>>> rc5 at lists.distributed.net
>>>> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rc5 mailing list
>> rc5 at lists.distributed.net
>> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5
> _______________________________________________
> rc5 mailing list
> rc5 at lists.distributed.net
> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5
>





More information about the rc5 mailing list