Hello,

Configuration: Windows NT SP6a

Compaq Server with 2 Pentium Processors

24x7 Automation Suite 3.3

Dos Batch Files and VB Applications

Problem: Running several jobs concurrently on a SMP enabled server. The jobs DO run concurrently but when run through 24x7 they do not load balance across the processors hence increasing run-time. When run individually through explorer jobs load balance across the two processors and run times stay fairly consistant.

Thank You,

John

Additional Information: Attempted to as run jobs detached because I was hoping that since it starts another instance of the scheduler that might be a workaround but the same problem accures. I just have 3 schedulers using the same processor. ;)

John

By default Windows binds all child processes to the CPU of the parent process (in this case the job queue processor). By default 24x7 queue processor always runs on the first CPU.

Download bindcpu utility we have for 24x7. This utility can be used to run bind child processes to different cpus.

http://www.softtreetech.com/24x7/extras/bindcpu.exe

To run your batch file schedule a command as below

BINDCPU [affinity mask] [batch file name]

For the affinity mask use 1, 2, 4, 8, etc...

To bind to the first CPU use mask 1 to bind to the second CPU use mask 2

: Additional Information: Attempted to as run jobs detached because I was
: hoping that since it starts another instance of the scheduler that might
: be a workaround but the same problem accures. I just have 3 schedulers
: using the same processor. ;)

: John

Thank You! The BINDCPU utility seems to have done the trick.

It might be a nice enhancement if the scheduler itself could determine if you were running on a multi-processor system and then dynamically bind the job to the least busy processor (kind of like the least busy agent option). That would allow you to write more generic jobs since you wouldn't need to determine manually what processor the job will bind to during execution and have to modify the job if the enviroment changes.

Just a suggestion since I don't know how much code would need to be modified for such an implementation.

Once again thank you for the util! ;)

John