On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:09:57AM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: > On Wednesday 05 October 2005 19:52, Ross Boylan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:42:09AM +0100, Russell Howe wrote: > > > Ross Boylan wrote: ... > > 2) single jobs. Priorities may influence which of several > > simultaneously scheduled jobs start first, but this is not completely > > reliable. > > > > Am I following correctly? > > Yes, with the exception of item 2. The scheduler *should* normally start > simultaneous jobs in priority order, but I warned users, that if they want to > be 100% simply defer the start times appropriately. The scheduler cannot > possibly schedule all jobs to infinity, so it works on a two hour basis, thus > without a mathematical proof, I cannot be 100% sure what will happen in all > cases. >
I'm not sure how literally you meant "proof", but if you give me some premises I'm game for seeing what conclusions could be drawn. Or is the issue more that you're aware of some weird cases where things would fall down? Ross ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
