Re: [PATCH] scheduler patch, faster still
D.A. Harris (rodmur@ecst.csuchico.edu)
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 07:57:43 -0700
On Tue, Sep 29, 1998 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Olaf Titz wrote:
> [I'm not taking any sides in this flamewar. Just an unrelated comment.]
>
> > almost completely irrelevant to a plain old user. I cannot think of one
> > application that would be found in the typical office at present that
> > actually would need real-time scheduling.
>
> A box that acts as an answering machine via voice modem is an example
> of a (hard!) realtime application in an office environment. It would
> be a glorious waste to designate a CPU for that; at least the box has
> also to do print server tasks which are obviously non-realtime. (Hard
> realtime because even one missed character on the serial line can
> cause complete desynchronization, depending on the compression used,
> this means end of recording.)
Well, it wouldn't be waste if you are implementing a voice mail system for
say 400 users. If the RT stuff was stable and reliable you could challenge
Qunix in that market.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dale Harris <rodmur@csuchico.edu> PGP KeyID: E26EC5FD
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/
|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/