<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Using mpsched in Operating System - HP-UX</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/using-mpsched/m-p/2993774#M124948</link>
    <description>On a multi-cpu platform(11i), what are the benefits if a stick one process to a cpu? Is it better than letting it jump from one cpu to another?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I'm planning to run schedules on checking processes that utilize more than 50% of 1 cpu, to stick to just one cpu by using mpsched, but would I benefit from it?</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:05:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>EML</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-06-10T19:05:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Using mpsched</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/using-mpsched/m-p/2993774#M124948</link>
      <description>On a multi-cpu platform(11i), what are the benefits if a stick one process to a cpu? Is it better than letting it jump from one cpu to another?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I'm planning to run schedules on checking processes that utilize more than 50% of 1 cpu, to stick to just one cpu by using mpsched, but would I benefit from it?</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:05:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/operating-system-hp-ux/using-mpsched/m-p/2993774#M124948</guid>
      <dc:creator>EML</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-10T19:05:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

