Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #6875
| Path | csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | markspace <-@.> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: A quota based lock |
| Date | Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:57:30 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 19 |
| Message-ID | <j1pbj1$hvd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <83f81158-8aee-486d-a51b-c0f7dfdbb0da@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <j1oj30$tut$1@dont-email.me> <j1p40f$jua$1@dont-email.me> <j1p4n8$pog$1@dont-email.me> <j1pago$8ua$1@dont-email.me> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Injection-Date | Mon, 8 Aug 2011 18:57:37 +0000 (UTC) |
| Injection-Info | mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="XjIWM99mD7Ijfdu600oVPA"; logging-data="18413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pGQcb5g6WylGZpnxfCnCZZlVQ2XOZMME=" |
| User-Agent | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 |
| In-Reply-To | <j1pago$8ua$1@dont-email.me> |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:rKBTO3wDYwt/7hPQhXTkybpB9vs= |
| Xref | x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6875 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On 8/8/2011 11:39 AM, Knute Johnson wrote: > No priority scheme will ever be truly fair. I'll bet you could get > pretty close without being too complicated. I'll think about it some more. A simple priority system might involve multiple queues, where the high priority queues are serviced X times more than the lower ones. E.g., two queues. Queue A gets 10 jobs executed for each 1 job that queue B gets executed. But because queue B is always guaranteed to be serviced eventually, there is no starvation. This is a simple step up from round-robin service (which is what Eric proposed). There are many algorithms existing. Check out any text on OSs and job scheduling.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
A quota based lock Robert Stark <panxiaozhong@gmail.com> - 2011-08-08 00:13 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-08 07:58 -0400
Re: A quota based lock Knute Johnson <september@knutejohnson.com> - 2011-08-08 09:48 -0700
Re: A quota based lock markspace <-@.> - 2011-08-08 10:00 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Knute Johnson <september@knutejohnson.com> - 2011-08-08 11:39 -0700
Re: A quota based lock markspace <-@.> - 2011-08-08 11:57 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-08 21:46 +0200
Re: A quota based lock Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-08 20:41 -0400
Re: A quota based lock Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-10 09:36 +0200
Re: A quota based lock Robert Stark <panxiaozhong@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 04:40 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-10 18:55 +0200
Re: A quota based lock Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-08-10 19:26 +0000
Re: A quota based lock Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-10 12:37 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Robert Stark <panxiaozhong@gmail.com> - 2011-08-10 18:30 -0700
Re: A quota based lock markspace <-@.> - 2011-08-10 19:17 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-11 12:32 +0200
Re: A quota based lock Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-08-09 21:00 +0100
Re: A quota based lock markspace <-@.> - 2011-08-08 07:58 -0700
Re: A quota based lock Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-08-09 21:45 +0100
csiph-web