Re: Giving a process absolute priority
[email protected] (Steve Blinkhorn) Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:09:14 +0000 (UTC)
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.ports.x86-64 |
|---|---|
| Organization | Psychometric Research & Development Ltd. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
You wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 8:19 AM Mouse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > [I]t is possible for the Xvnc process to be squeezed out briefly by > > > the scheduler, but not so briefly that remote clients do not notice > > > and get frustrated because a button has not responded in the way they > > > expect. > > > > I don't know whether this is plausible; you don't say what your basis > > is for thinking the issue is Xvnc getting scheduled out. But it occurs > > to me that, unless you have some independent reason for thinking Xvnc > > is the problem, the actual problem might be nothing to do with Xvnc but > > rather a brief network hiccup leading to the VNC connection locking up > > until a retransmit timer fires and the underlying TCP connection picks > > up again. > > Yeap. Wireshark it. If you can get a few examples of the problem, and > it's not obviously a network issue, you can still look at the timing > of responses to find system issues. > > Andy > Thanks, but I wouldn't have asked for such specific advice if I hadn't already spent hours comparing and cross-maatching the contents of the numerous logs we keep in addition to the system logs. For us the point is that there is a way of guaranteeing the availability of a dedicated CPU and priority access to a network adapter. So we have to do it to keep faith with our users. Sure, there may be issues that arise outside our estate, but I know for sure this one didn't. -- Steve Blinkhorn <[email protected]>