Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> No, that isn't how scheduling works.  The next process in the queue
> will always be scheduled on the next processor available.

Which is what I said
--

Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e058ec0$3@news.povray.org> , "Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com>
wrote:

> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> No, that isn't how scheduling works.  The next process in the queue
>> will always be scheduled on the next processor available.
>
> Which is what I said

No, you did not, or at least you don't understand why using this algorithm
will cause two "heavy" processes to end up on two different CPUs exactly as
they should!

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message