<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on simple unix schedulers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.leyton.org/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.leyton.org/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/</link>
	<description>Thoughts. Comment. Opinion.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:13:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mark speakman</title>
		<link>http://www.leyton.org/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/comment-page-1/#comment-19274</link>
		<dc:creator>mark speakman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leyton.org/diary/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/#comment-19274</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hello&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Stumbled across your site on another search but it touched a nerve. I&#039;ve got a reasonable amount of work unit scheduling and scheduling products experience (have twice assesed new products).
 I have previously come to the conclusion that generally the products on offer are too weighty, complex and expensive and that there is a niche to be filled by a simple (very) low cost no frills product, definately no GUI.
 I have the skills to develop one but have never started for a variety of reasons but the main 2 are: 
 I work in a support/development role and tend to like to switch off at the end of a working day and on the occassions I get past this I then assume that the Linux devotees will already have developed one anyway.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Cheers &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mark&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello</p>
<p>Stumbled across your site on another search but it touched a nerve. I&#8217;ve got a reasonable amount of work unit scheduling and scheduling products experience (have twice assesed new products).<br />
 I have previously come to the conclusion that generally the products on offer are too weighty, complex and expensive and that there is a niche to be filled by a simple (very) low cost no frills product, definately no GUI.<br />
 I have the skills to develop one but have never started for a variety of reasons but the main 2 are:<br />
 I work in a support/development role and tend to like to switch off at the end of a working day and on the occassions I get past this I then assume that the Linux devotees will already have developed one anyway.</p>
<p>Cheers </p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Leyton</title>
		<link>http://www.leyton.org/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/comment-page-1/#comment-19275</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Leyton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leyton.org/diary/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/#comment-19275</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ve had a few requests for QSBS, so it&#039;s available here:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;http://www.leyton.org/download/qsbs-0.1.tar.gz&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Needless to say: it&#039;s VERY alpha, not complete, and very, well, Quick and Simple (as in not much effort). If you find a use for it, great, but use it at your own risk. For now, it&#039;s distributed under the GNU General Public License, and comes with no warranty (See the README and COPYING files).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m leaving to go travelling in a month or so, but I may start work on something a bit more fully featured later this year, after I return from South-East asia in June/July.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had a few requests for QSBS, so it&#8217;s available here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.leyton.org/download/qsbs-0.1.tar.gz" rel="nofollow" >http://www.leyton.org/download/qsbs-0.1.tar.gz</a></p>
<p>Needless to say: it&#8217;s VERY alpha, not complete, and very, well, Quick and Simple (as in not much effort). If you find a use for it, great, but use it at your own risk. For now, it&#8217;s distributed under the GNU General Public License, and comes with no warranty (See the README and COPYING files).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m leaving to go travelling in a month or so, but I may start work on something a bit more fully featured later this year, after I return from South-East asia in June/July.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kimball</title>
		<link>http://www.leyton.org/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/comment-page-1/#comment-19276</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kimball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leyton.org/diary/2003/11/11/more-on-simple-unix-schedulers/#comment-19276</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Richard -&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I have done a lot of work with schedulers over my years and, indeed, have ended up with Autosys everywhere I have worked. Even though it is outrageously expensive, it is also reliable and for this job, we can&#039;t afford to pinch pennies. One of the Windows groups where I currently work had implemented some jobs in an app called 24x7 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.softtreetech.com/24x7).&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.softtreetech.com/24x7).&lt;/a&gt; It was simple and cheap but they admitted that it failed/crashed a couple times a week. So we are converting their stuff to Autosys.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A motivation for my writing to you is that I am also a convert to the Mac for a little over the past year. Our office is investigating alternatives to Solaris machines ($9000 for 2U dual CPU Sparc 240). The current favorite in the systems group is RH Linux ($7500 for dual CPU incl. Server software). I am trying to push dual CPU G5 XServes. The only thing holding me back is Autosys availability. Heaven knows what it will take to move the CA mountain, but thought I&#039;d pass on to you that I am going to try.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard -</p>
<p>I have done a lot of work with schedulers over my years and, indeed, have ended up with Autosys everywhere I have worked. Even though it is outrageously expensive, it is also reliable and for this job, we can&#8217;t afford to pinch pennies. One of the Windows groups where I currently work had implemented some jobs in an app called 24&#215;7 (<a href="http://www.softtreetech.com/24x7)." rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.softtreetech.com');"></a><a href="http://www.softtreetech.com/24x7)" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/comment/www.softtreetech.com');">http://www.softtreetech.com/24&#215;7)</a>. It was simple and cheap but they admitted that it failed/crashed a couple times a week. So we are converting their stuff to Autosys.</p>
<p>A motivation for my writing to you is that I am also a convert to the Mac for a little over the past year. Our office is investigating alternatives to Solaris machines ($9000 for 2U dual CPU Sparc 240). The current favorite in the systems group is RH Linux ($7500 for dual CPU incl. Server software). I am trying to push dual CPU G5 XServes. The only thing holding me back is Autosys availability. Heaven knows what it will take to move the CA mountain, but thought I&#8217;d pass on to you that I am going to try.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
