scheduling

Consider a case where we have multiple processor/cores and two threads. Is it possible to force the linux scheduler to always schedule the specific thread(both) to a specific processor at every instance of its execution. Is setting processor affinity to the threads, while creation, sufficient for this purpose If you look at the man page for taskset you can see the following statement: The Linux scheduler will honor the given CPU affinity and the process will not run on any other CPUs. This means that setting the CPU affinity for a particular process will make sure that it's always run on that

Suppose that a disk drive has 5000 cylinders, numbered 0 to 4999. The drive is currently serving a request at cylinder 143, and the previous request was at cylinder 125. The queue of pending requests, in FIFO order, is 86, 1470, 913, 1774, 948, 1509, 1022, 1750, 130 Starting from the current head position, what is the total distance (in cylinders) that the disk arm moves to satisfy all the pending requests, for each of the following disk-scheduling algorithms --> C-SCAN and C-LOOK I have made some notes on what I think the order in each case would be and the resulting distance. a. Starts at

Say I want to schedule a collection of events in the period 00:00–00:59. I schedule them on full minutes (00:01, never 00:01:30). I want to space them out as far apart as possible within that period, but I don't know in advance how many events I will have total within that hour. I may schedule one event today, then two more tomorrow. I have the obvious algorithm in my head, and I can think of brute-force ways to implement it, but I'm sure someone knows a nicer way. I'd prefer Ruby or something I can translate to Ruby, but I'll take what I can get. So the algorithm I can think of in my head:

In Java Concurrency in Practice, the authors write: When locking is contended, the losing thread(s) must block. The JVM can implement blocking either via spin-waiting (repeatedly trying to acquire the lock until it succeeds) or by suspending the blocked thread through the operating system. Which is more efficient depends on the relationship between context switch overhead and the time until the lock becomes available; spin-waiting is preferred for short waits and suspension is preferable for long waits. Some JVMs choose between the two adaptively based on profiling data of past wait times, but

How mature is Chronos ? Is it a viable alternative to scheduler like celery-beat? Right now our scheduling implements a periodic "heartbeat" task that checks of "outstanding" events and fires them if they are overdue. We are using python-dateutil 's rrule for defining this. We are looking at alternatives to this approach, and Chronos seems a very attactive alternative: 1) it would mitigate the necessity to use a heartbeat schedule task, 2) it supports RESTful submission of events with ISO8601 format, 3) has a useful interface for management, and 4) it scales. The crucial requirement is that

I've set up four transformations in Kettle. Now, I would like to schedule them so that they will run daily at a certain time and one after the another. For example, tranformation1 -> transformation2 -> transformation3 -> transformation4 should run daily at 8.00 am. How can I do that? You can execute transformation from the command line using the tool Pan : Pan.bat /file:transform.ktr /param:name=value The syntax might be different depending on your system - check out the link above for more information. When you have a batch file executing your transformation you can just schedule it to run