sharing better with 'nice' - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on sharing better with 'nice' - Ubuntu ; I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because it takes minutes to respond. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: sharing better with 'nice'

  1. sharing better with 'nice'

    I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a
    background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special
    measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because
    it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare'
    CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response,
    i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be
    running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp
    process should take a back seat.

    I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable
    effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but
    I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity.

    Any ideas?
    --
    John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

  2. Re: sharing better with 'nice'

    This issue is called "quality of service" or QoS, read wikipedia about
    it. People just about gave up on it due to complexity of issues.

    i

    On 2007-12-21, John Savage wrote:
    > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a
    > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special
    > measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because
    > it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare'
    > CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response,
    > i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be
    > running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp
    > process should take a back seat.
    >
    > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable
    > effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but
    > I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity.
    >
    > Any ideas?


  3. Re: sharing better with 'nice'

    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.ubuntu.]
    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:43:07 +0000 (UTC),
    John Savage wrote:
    > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a
    > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any
    > special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be
    > unusable because it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp
    > process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost
    > no extent on my browser response, i.e., while I am studying the
    > browser's screen the ftp process can be running at full tilt, but
    > when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp process should take
    > a back seat.
    >
    > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little
    > noticeable effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and
    > KILL -CONT but I want it automated and preferably governed by
    > browser process activity.


    nice changes process priority, of which your ftp client (whatever it
    is?) probably uses a minimal amount of processing time anyway.

    According to a quick Google search, you want to research "traffic
    shaping" and "QoS" (quality of service). You may want to check out
    tcpnice or netnice.

    GL,

    Michael C.
    --
    mjchappell@verizon.net http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

    If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!

  4. Re: sharing better with 'nice'

    John Savage wrote:
    > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a
    > background ftp downloading in another window. [...]


    > I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles [...]


    I strongly suspect the CPU cycles are totally irrelevant. (Unless you're
    using a multi-gigabit connection end-to-end, of course.) What you almost
    certainly need to do is to shape the available network bandwidth.

    There are sophisticated but complex ways of doing this, or there's
    trickle ("trickle is a userspace bandwidth manager").

    I guess you're using Ubuntu, so "aptitude install trickle" and then
    "man trickle" for details.

    Chris

+ Reply to Thread