I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response, i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp process should take a back seat. I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity. Any ideas? -- John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

This issue is called "quality of service" or QoS, read wikipedia about it. People just about gave up on it due to complexity of issues. i On 2007-12-21, John Savage <rookswood@suburbian.com.au> wrote: > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special > measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because > it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare' > CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response, > i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be > running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp > process should take a back seat. > > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable > effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but > I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity. > > Any ideas?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.ubuntu.] On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:43:07 +0000 (UTC), John Savage <rookswood@suburbian.com.au> wrote: > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any > special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be > unusable because it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp > process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost > no extent on my browser response, i.e., while I am studying the > browser's screen the ftp process can be running at full tilt, but > when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp process should take > a back seat. > > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little > noticeable effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and > KILL -CONT but I want it automated and preferably governed by > browser process activity. nice changes process priority, of which your ftp client (whatever it is?) probably uses a minimal amount of processing time anyway. According to a quick Google search, you want to research "traffic shaping" and "QoS" (quality of service). You may want to check out tcpnice or netnice. GL, Michael C. -- mjchappell@verizon.net http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/ If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!

I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response, i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp process should take a back seat. I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity. Any ideas? -- John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

This issue is called "quality of service" or QoS, read wikipedia about it. People just about gave up on it due to complexity of issues. i On 2007-12-21, John Savage <rookswood@suburbian.com.au> wrote: > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any special > measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be unusable because > it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp process to only use 'spare' > CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost no extent on my browser response, > i.e., while I am studying the browser's screen the ftp process can be > running at full tilt, but when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp > process should take a back seat. > > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little noticeable > effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and KILL -CONT but > I want it automated and preferably governed by browser process activity. > > Any ideas?

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.ubuntu.] On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:43:07 +0000 (UTC), John Savage <rookswood@suburbian.com.au> wrote: > I'd like to have an interactive browser running in one window and a > background ftp downloading in another window. Without taking any > special measures I find the browser in this arrangement to be > unusable because it takes minutes to respond. I'd like the ftp > process to only use 'spare' CPU cycles so that it impacts to almost > no extent on my browser response, i.e., while I am studying the > browser's screen the ftp process can be running at full tilt, but > when I start clicking the browser mouse the ftp process should take > a back seat. > > I tried renicing the ftp process to 12 but this had little > noticeable effect. The best I can do is to manually KILL -STOP and > KILL -CONT but I want it automated and preferably governed by > browser process activity. nice changes process priority, of which your ftp client (whatever it is?) probably uses a minimal amount of processing time anyway. According to a quick Google search, you want to research "traffic shaping" and "QoS" (quality of service). You may want to check out tcpnice or netnice. GL, Michael C. -- mjchappell@verizon.net http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/ If at first you DON'T succeed, Skydiving is NOT for YOU!!