On 06/02/11 02:31, Corey wrote: > On 06/01/2011 10:16 AM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: >>> >>> I had tinkered with a solution for this: >>> Cron wakes up a minute before the batch run is scheduled to run. >>> Cron will >>> then copy a random 4kb sector from the hard disk to RAM, then run >>> either an >>> MD5 or SHA hash against it. The whole process would be timed and if it >>> completed within a a reasonable amount of time for the system then it >>> would >>> kick off a batch job >>> >>> This was the easiest way I thought of measuring the actual >>> performance of >>> the system at any given time since it measures the entire system and >> closely >>> emulates actual work. >>> >>> While this isn't really the right thing to do, I found it to be the most >>> effective on my systems. >>> >>> >> You really think cron should be doing it's own calculation ? I don't >> like that *at all*. >> >> Can't we just have a higher default threshold for cron ? >> Can't we default to 0 ? >> >> I think this is something that should be looked up, if we admit load >> average is a shitty measure, we shouldn't rely on it for running cron >> jobs. >> >> I hereby vote for default to 0. (Thank god this isn't a democracy :-) ) >> > Just have cron look at the system load average... > > <ducking> :) >
a few posts it was mentioned that that is actually the case
