Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!BINGVAXA.BITNET!TBLAKE
From: TBLAKE@BINGVAXA.BITNET (THOMAS R. BLAKE)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: VAX CPU usage charges
Message-ID: <8610090001.AA07343@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 20:25:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610090001.AA07343
Posted: Wed Oct  8 20:25:43 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 01:07:58 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

Folks,

        Okay, Okay ... enough.  I really don't see what is so unreasonable
about saying that if you run your job at a time when there is peak usage,
it will cost more.  This is a concept that any layman can deal with.  (When
you drive at rush hour, it is gonna take longer to get to where you are going.)
Users have always accepted that if they run their processes in Batch, that they
will be cheaper, (since they are running in the background),  why should this
little variation be so hard to accept if explained.

        The question comes in not in charging, but for comparison.  It might be
nice to know how much "virtual CPU time" a process is using.

                                        Another Addition to a Religious War
                                        Thomas R. Blake
                                        Academic Support
                                        SUNY Computer Center
                                        Binghamton, NY  13901

<My boss had nothing to do with this, in fact, neither did I>