Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:06:09 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/07 22:34, cga2000 wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:04:06PM EDT, Ron Johnson wrote:[snip]
On 05/10/07 11:27, william pursell wrote:
be sitting in the editor where you left it. It providesYes, but competent OSs have batch queues for running such jobs. Why
continuity by allowing you to leave your shells running
for months at a time without having to put those
phenomenally lame signs on your monitor that say,
"please don't log me out, I'm running a simulation
that may take a while and have to lock up this terminal
because I don't know any better."
Unix has never had such a capability is beyond my understanding.
Not an authority on these matters but maybe this may have to do with the
fact that the hardware was designed to do heavy batch processing in the
first place. And so the OS .. and later .. the applications followed
suit.
Assuming what I have in mind is an example of a "competent OS"
:-)
So your question might be turned around as in .. how come an OS like
MVS, for instance .. has/had at least four "job schedulers" that I can
think of off the top of my head .. and all of them save one from
third-party vendors.
Because JES2 & JES3 suck?
It's just about all these machines do but they do it very well.
So if you are serious about running hundreds of jobs every night that
basically open a bunch of files do a few million I/O's and close the
files .. all without any form of human interaction .. you probably want
one of those.
IBM's big systems are the canonical examples, but other OSs also
have batch queues. OpenVMS & OS/400 being other examples, but VMS
is also an excellent interactive OS.
(NO!! cron is *not* an adequate substitute for batch queues!)
.. wonder if AIX has anything a bit more sophisticated than cron ..
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGQ+uxS9HxQb37XmcRAj+IAKCRKtjXQfsf4XflvDEHexGNZuYtewCeII6y
Ns95wVmPnCWwP6tBln0HQu0=
=bZFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: cga2000
- Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- References:
- Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)
- From: Amy Templeton
- Re: Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)
- From: mmiller3
- Re: Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)
- From: Amy Templeton
- [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: Tyler Smith
- Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: william pursell
- Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: Ron Johnson
- Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- From: cga2000
- Affecting Institutional Change (Yeah Right)
- Prev by Date: Re: swap
- Next by Date: Re: Since chvt works, the problem must be the keymap [SOLVED]
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Screen (was Affecting Inst. Change)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|