HP3000-L Archives

January 1996, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 19:36:19 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
On Fri, 12 Jan 1996 16:01:42 -0800 <[log in to unmask]> said:
>Jeff wrote:
>>>:ALTJOB on an EXECuting job only requires evaluating whether a different job
>>>can now launch because we just freed up a slot in the queue we were in.
>>
>> Yuck... I see no need to alter the queue after the job reaches INTRO/EXEC.
>> No, no, no; overly complicating things.
>
>Hmmm. Ok, maybe.  The desire to move a job from the SHORT queue to the LONG
>queue once it is determined that it's really going to take three hours
>instead of three minutes seems pretty basic though.
 
If it's takes longer than SHORT's CPULIM= then it should be bombed; else
users will abuse the facility.
 
>The alternative is to
>increase the LIMIT on the SHORT queue by one, but then you have the problem
>that when the job finishes, the limit on SHORT is one too high.
 
Go back to my post; you would ALTJOB the waiting job into the HOT queue and
away it goes.
 
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2