nice X, good dog...

phrakture · 2005-05-13 15:37:44

does anyone still nice/renice X to -10? I've heard through the grapevine that this isn't needed anymore... someone more knowledgable than me care to respond?

sud_crow · 2005-05-13 16:02:59

I never did it... is this usefull for something?? i mean, why give X low priority?

phrakture · 2005-05-13 16:31:53

sud_crow wrote:

I never did it... is this usefull for something?? i mean, why give X low priority?

low priority = scheduler executes X stuff first = more responsive desktop

i3839 · 2005-05-13 16:33:02

Or in other words, lower nice value means higher priority, less "nice" to other processes.

Gullible Jones · 2005-05-13 19:37:13

I find X to be very responsive by default.

CyberTron · 2005-05-13 19:56:11

excuse me for being such a newbie, but how does one change the priority?

and does it work?

lucke · 2005-05-13 20:09:23

As for the first question: renice -10 'pidof X' ought to do the job.

As for the question of its usefulness, CK states it's unnecessary (or even unwanted) anymore. Reference:

http://ck.kolivas.org/audio_hints.txt
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2005/04/msg00261.html

CyberTron · 2005-05-13 21:30:21

thanks

*now I know how to do it, but i also believe that one should not do it *

Arch Linux

#1 2005-05-13 15:37:44

nice X, good dog...

#2 2005-05-13 16:02:59

Re: nice X, good dog...

#3 2005-05-13 16:31:53

Re: nice X, good dog...

#4 2005-05-13 16:33:02

Re: nice X, good dog...

#5 2005-05-13 19:37:13

Re: nice X, good dog...

#6 2005-05-13 19:56:11

Re: nice X, good dog...

#7 2005-05-13 20:09:23

Re: nice X, good dog...

#8 2005-05-13 21:30:21

Re: nice X, good dog...

Board footer