Re: DNETC is not backing down with CST needs processing power
Philippe Faure <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.distributed-net.rc5 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yes, the computer department is aware of it, and have approval. Philippe Quoting bert <[email protected]>: > If you are not the owner of that server and are trying to run dnetc on > it,I do hope you have permission before you even think of installing it > on that server,you might be opening a can of worms(wouldn't want you to > get fired or kicked out of school,etc). > > Bert > > On 4/14/2011 5:13 PM, Philippe Faure wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Yes, the problem is that the process is run by another user. I don't >> have access to the admin account to run DNETC as a service. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion to run with fewer than the total number of >> processors. I am now doing that and it seems to be working. What I >> meant by backing off was "pausing" when the other process starts. >> >> Thanks >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> Quoting Jeff Lawson<[email protected]>: >> >>> Are you saying that the "Pause when running" feature doesn't work >>> because the process is running as another user? If so, have you tried >>> installing dnetc as a service? >>> >>> When you say you have backed off usage of some of the CPU, does that >>> mean you have configured dnetc to use fewer processors than the total >>> available? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Philippe Faure<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have a large server (24 logical CPU's) that can run DNETC, but for >>>> some reason when an application is started by someone else, DNETC >>>> doesn't recognize this, and doesn't relinquish the CPU processing time. >>>> >>>> The software is called CST (http://www.cst.com/). I was wondering if >>>> someone else has come across this issue? >>>> >>>> Since the user running CST and the DNETC user are not the same, I >>>> can't check from processes manually. This is happening on an Windows >>>> Server 2008 R2. >>>> >>>> For now, I have backed off the user of all CPU, but this is a >>>> sub-optimal solution. If someone else has come across this issue, I >>>> would like to know how they solved it. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> Philippe >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rc5 mailing list >>>> rc5-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected] >>>> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5 >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rc5 mailing list >> rc5-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected] >> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5 > _______________________________________________ > rc5 mailing list > rc5-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected] > http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5 > _______________________________________________ rc5 mailing list rc5-Ra3b/QYEcJ3d140v2zMXi0fjHoOT/h/[email protected] http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/rc5