Re: Giving a process absolute priority

[steve%prd.co.uk@localhost (Steve Blinkhorn)]

You wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:19 AM Mouse <mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > > [I]t is possible for the Xvnc process to be squeezed out briefly by
> > > the scheduler, but not so briefly that remote clients do not notice
> > > and get frustrated because a button has not responded in the way they
> > > expect.
> >
> > I don't know whether this is plausible; you don't say what your basis
> > is for thinking the issue is Xvnc getting scheduled out.  But it occurs
> > to me that, unless you have some independent reason for thinking Xvnc
> > is the problem, the actual problem might be nothing to do with Xvnc but
> > rather a brief network hiccup leading to the VNC connection locking up
> > until a retransmit timer fires and the underlying TCP connection picks
> > up again.
> 
> Yeap. Wireshark it. If you can get a few examples of the problem, and
> it's not obviously a network issue, you can still look at the timing
> of responses to find system issues.
> 
> Andy
> 

Thanks, but I wouldn't have asked for such specific advice if I
hadn't already spent hours comparing and cross-maatching the contents
of the numerous logs we keep in addition to the system logs.  For
us the point is that there is a way of guaranteeing the availability
of a dedicated CPU and priority access to a network adapter.  So
we have to do it to keep faith with our users.  Sure, there may be
issues that arise outside our estate, but I know for sure this one
didn't.

--
Steve Blinkhorn <steve%prd.co.uk@localhost>