siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) (06/01/90)
Does anybody know why the new Korn shell lowers the priority of background processes? I felt so betrayed by my own shell when I first noticed this. I feel old and wise enough to decide which processes should run slow, and know which command to use for that. In particular, I like my xterm processes to be run at a high priority, not a low one. Siebren van der Zee, siebren@cwi.nl CWI, Amsterdam
ekrell@ulysses.att.com (Eduardo Krell) (06/02/90)
In article <siebren.644249314@piring.cwi.nl> siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) writes: >Does anybody know why the new Korn shell lowers the priority >of background processes? Because you have the "bgnice" option on. Type "set -o" and you'll see a line that says bgnice off This is the default behavior. If you want this changed, add "set +o bgnice" to your ENV file. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (06/02/90)
In article <siebren.644249314@piring.cwi.nl> siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) writes: >Does anybody know why the new Korn shell lowers the priority >of background processes?... Because you ask it to do this. It's a variable called BGNICE i believe. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
ekrell@ulysses.att.com (Eduardo Krell) (06/02/90)
In article <13051@ulysses.att.com> I said: >bgnice off > >This is the default behavior. Oops. The default bgnice behavior is "on". I copied the above from my shell output where I turn it off. Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
cbrandau@nyx.UUCP (carl brandauer) (06/03/90)
every shell i have used in the last 13 years has lowered the priority of background processes - makes sense to me
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (06/04/90)
>every shell i have used in the last 13 years has lowered the priority of >background processes - makes sense to me But not to everybody. The problem with a shell doing so is that it's making an assumption that's not necessarily true, namely that a "background" process - i.e., a process initially started with an "&" - isn't an interactive process. This isn't necessarily true on: 1) systems with job control - the job may be moved into the foreground later; 2) systems with a window system - the job may be a terminal emulator, in which case you can run all sorts of interactive processes within the session it starts up. The original poster was being bit by 2); as he said, In particular, I like my xterm processes to be run at a high priority, not a low one. and frankly, I think most "xterm" users would agree with him.
cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) (06/12/90)
In article <siebren.644249314@piring.cwi.nl> siebren@cwi.nl (Siebren van der Zee) writes: >Does anybody know why the new Korn shell lowers the priority of background >processes? I see others have replied about ksh, about which I know next to nothing (it's too expensive for us round here, I'm waiting until bash is reliable enough, which I suspect will be the next release), but the version of tcsh I use runs background processes at `nice +2' unless you use `nice +0 prog &'. Seems to work quite well to me ... Rob -- UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!warwick!cudcv PHONE: +44 203 523037 JANET: cudcv@uk.ac.warwick INET: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England