Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!zodiac!anders@penguin
From: anders@penguin (Anders Wallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Single user vs. shared (was Re: Killer Micros and vectorized code)
Message-ID: <11321@zodiac.ADS.COM>
Date: 21 Mar 90 22:25:53 GMT
References: <51771@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <100598@convex.convex.com> <52661@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Mar18.023523.4034@ultra.com> <52817@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Mar19.220617.26370@world.std.com> <500@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ> <268@van-bc.UUCP>
Sender: news@zodiac.ADS.COM
Reply-To: anders@penguin (Anders Wallgren)
Organization: Verity
Lines: 20
In-reply-to: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)

In article <268@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>
>You have to have a scheduler that is aware of the number of users currently
>requesting CPU cycles. When the number of cycles available is less than
>requested divide it up via a formula where all possible users are allocated
>a fixed percentage of CPU cycles (such that the total of all users
>allocations add's up to 100 per cent).
>
>When cycles are scarce you get at least your allocation. When cycles are 
>available because there is no one else around (at 3:00 AM for example) you 
>can get access to a MUCH larger amount of cycles.
>
>For example if there are 50 people using a 50MIPS Killer Micro Mini
>Mainframe (TM), each would be allocated 2%. During the day when *all* 50
>people are in and pounding on the keyboard they would each get about 1MIPS
>worth of CPU if they need it. At night two late night programmers doing big 
>make's could each get 50% or 25MIPS.
>

Karl Marx would be proud...