>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Graff" <explorer@flame.org> writes:

Michael> Even if it did, who cares?  On an otherwise idle machine
Michael> priority shouldn't slow down a thing.  If other things are
Michael> running as well, they will fight for the CPU, of course.

Michael> I think we're hitting psych here.  :) Machines with a
Michael> constant load of 1 _feel_ slower than those with 0.  The
Michael> actual speeds may or may not be different, but if you ask
Michael> someone who has a lav of 1 and they'll claim the computer is
Michael> so slow because of it.

	What I (the origional poster) am up against is a very busy
machine.  My load average is usually between 3 and 8 (what can I
say... I'm just a busy person).

	I regularly use nice to control the allocation of *MY* CPU.
However, X and emacs are two processes that I don't want niced.

	That said, I can see admins that what this ability.  At school
they had a very costly little script that did the same thing (the
script usually had the most time charged to it), but I think that this
whole thing should be an option or something of that nature.

	Besides the fact that on a single user machine, it's a
completely useless option (it assumes that at least one user is
hostile to other users), the choice of 10 minutes of CPU is somewhat
arbitrary ... on some machines, that represents more than X would
consume in the average day ... on others... it doesn't take any time
at all to run up a lot of CPU.

Dave.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David Gilbert, PCI, Richmond Hill, Ontario.  | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:      dgilbert@pci.on.ca                |  equal if and only if they |
|http://www.pci.on.ca/~dgilbert               |   are precisely opposite.  |
---------------------------------------------------------GLO----------------