Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Permanently Set Process Priority in Windows? 125

Dave asks: "I have a render farm set up for 3D Studio Max. I have a Render user that runs 3dsmax.exe when it is sent jobs by the render farm server. I have tried to set the process to low when it runs, and it works. However, when the computer is finished rendering the images, and is sent a new set to render, the priority goes back to normal (program closes in between renderings). This obviously defeats the purpose of rendering an image in the background while others are still working, as you can imagine having 3dsmax.exe pegged at 100% CPU, slows down the machine tremendously. Is there anything that can be done to set the render user's instance of 3dsmax.exe permanently to low? Or is it possible to just set 3dsmax.exe to the low priority. I know there is a command line that sets any .exe to low, but that also starts the program. I would like 3dsmax.exe to be set to low either: when render launches the program, or set 3dsmax.exe to low whenever it is launched. Can anything be done?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Permanently Set Process Priority in Windows?

Comments Filter:
  • start /low (Score:5, Informative)

    by teeheehee ( 12647 ) * on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:49AM (#16044537) Homepage
    If you check out 'help start' you can see that setting the priority of a process is pretty simple at the time of invocation.

    'start /low 3dsmax.exe' or 'start /low [program.exe]' should work for you.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by teeheehee ( 12647 ) *
      Having re-read your post, I'm not sure if my reply helps :P

      I had thought that SysInternals had something to do this with command line, but was unable to find it. There's this third party tool which claims to be able to change the priority of a running process, but I've never used it to vouch for it: []

      Sorry for the likely helpless quick-post. I should drink coffee either before or after reading, not at the same time!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      While that won't set it permanently, if he modifies the shortcut that might be an acceptable workaround, providing he always uses the shortcut to launch the program (so no double-clicking on associated files).
    • by njvic ( 614279 )
      Microsoft do produce a utility that will help with the situation, however it's only available for enterprise or datacentre versions of Server 2003. It does exactly what the asker wants to do, but since the version of Windows he uses in the render farm is not specified, he may have to pay a premium to get this.

      Windows System Resource Manager []
  • I've had good results with Priority Master [] in XP, with only the occaisonal issue (video card lock up once or twice). Since I've moved to Vista, though, I've not really used it - but I suppose you could write a set of VBscript or - ugh - batch files that just launch the program in whatever priority you want, and replace the entries on your desktop/start menu with shortcuts to those script/batch files?
  • by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:51AM (#16044561)
    Your solution is here []
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kestasjk ( 933987 )
      You should avoid apps from places like that at all costs, especially when there are easy solutions involving free software.

      I'd say write an app which looks for 3dmax.exe processes at frequent intervals and sets them to low. With cygwin it'd take a couple of minutes to write a shell script. Do anything but don't use 'Priority Saver Deluxe Edition v10 for only $19.99', these companies exist because of ignorance/laziness and PageRank bots.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aminorex ( 141494 )
        So let me get this straight: Writing a program that people find useful and offering it for sale is somehow an evil deed? I'm sorry, but I think you've completely detached yourself from any sort of moral perspective, and quite possibly from reality itself. Hate to see you go.
        • I think he's saying that a lot of web sites selling extremely cheap single-purpose Windows utilities sell malware or redundant software that is no easier to use than the already existing functionality in Windows. He may be right. I never buy from software from websites except when I have a recommendation from someone I personally know and trust, because I can't see any other way to differentiate scam artists from honest vendors. Their web design skills aren't any worse.
        • by pla ( 258480 )
          So let me get this straight: Writing a program that people find useful and offering it for sale is somehow an evil deed?

          Well... When that program solves a problem with a solution already included with the base OS (ie, just change your shortcut to "start /low foo.exe") while pretending to do something more wonderful than sliced bread - Yes, we've entered the realm of less-than-kosher.

          As an aside, I wrote a very similar program back in the Win2k days, as it didn't support setting process affinity on the
      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by itwerx ( 165526 )
        You should avoid apps from places like that at all costs, especially when there are easy solutions involving free software.

        Free software is never without cost though. If I have a problem that can be solved in 5 minutes by spending $19.95 that's a heck of a lot cheaper than spending an hour of research and testing to find and set up or write from a scratch a good OSS solution.
        Or, to put it another way, I'm very willing to pay somebody else $19.95 to do that research and testing for me
        • "Let me say it again, OSS is never free."

          This is like saying commercial software always costs more than the invoiced price.
          • by itwerx ( 165526 )
            ...commercial software always costs more than the invoiced price.

            Also very true and succinctly said!
                  (If I ever write a book of IT wisdom I will have to include that. :)
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by phfpht ( 654492 )
          Preface: You are completely correct. I'll not dispute that.

          But, if you have "a problem" there *may* be a $19.95 solution that will work perfectly. But, just because it's $19.95 and neatly packaged doesn't mean it'll necessarily be any
          • a) easier to find (might still take an hour search just to find it amid the chaff of adware/junk out there) or
          • b) easy to use (installing a "nice package" may be quick, but using said program to solve "the problem" could still be complicated and time consuming).


        • $19.95? Can any technical problem be solved for $19.95? Assuming that you value your labor and the externalities and opportunity costs correctly, even the most trivial problems you're ever likely to encounter will run into the hundreds or (probably) thousands of dollars.

          You're absolutely correct that OSS is never cost-free. Neither is commercial software, even if it's "free" (or pirated). The primary reason for using Free Software, or Open Source Software, is that you have reason to believe that it wi

        • by Intron ( 870560 )
          Or, to put it another way, I'm very willing to pay somebody else $19.95 to do that research and testing for me and package the result up in a NICE neat bundle."

          Kind of funny.
      • by ynohoo ( 234463 )
        If you would have looked around their site you would have dicovered that:

        1) it is free for personal use
        2) they do not currently have commercial terms for this product

        I also wonder what kind of world you live in where you think professional programmers do not deserve to make a living from their trade. If daddy gave me 100K a year, I might think so too.
        • I just downloaded this myself and it seems very neat and tidy and integrates straight into Task Manager. It's as simple as adding "save priority" checkbox to the right-click menu. It also integrates a services tab (connected to the processes) and an optional TCP/IP tab which shows TCP/IP activity by process. And it has a few other nice features.

          Now I have only had it 5 minutes so can't give an in-depth account of how it is going to behave long-term regarding stability/system resources etc. but certainly the
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by amliebsch ( 724858 )

        I agree with above. For example, the following C# code works (.NET 2.0):

        using System;
        using System.Collections.Generic;
        using System.Text;
        using System.Diagnostics;
        using System.Threading;

        namespace SetLowPriority
        class Program
        static void Main(string[] args)
        string pname=null;

        if (args.Length==0)

        • Oh, and just in case - I personally authored the above code, and as owner of the copyright, release it into the public domain. ;)
    • by oddfox ( 685475 )

      It would appear that Prio doesn't enjoy an x64 Edition XP environment. Darn, was looking forward to giving it a run. Thanks for the link though.

  • Is there a way to determine how long a process has been "busy" (hourglass icon) for a given amount of time?

    I would like to be able to justify hardware upgrades by saying, "On PC #1 over a typical workday the user sees the hourglass icon X amount of time, but on new PC #2 he only sees it Y amount of time".


    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by giorgiofr ( 887762 )
      There's the whole Performance Monitor for that: you can save the value of many different parameters, such as CPU utilization, every n seconds, and generate reports based on those.
      • Of course the first thing I did was fire up the Performance Monitor, but I'm not really interested in CPU utilization as a metric. If the user is using 100% of the CPU but is not waiting on the computer, it's not a problem. What I really need to know is how frequently does the program "hang" while processing.

        • I believe you can measure blocked reads and writes, both to disk and memory, in perfmon. Maybe not though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by flink ( 18449 )
      The hourglass is just a picture. It has no intrinsic meaning as far as the application goes. You're supposed to change the cursor to the hourglass when your program is about to do something that will cause it to cease reacting to user input. Then, after the blocking call, you change it back to a pointer. A process could be pegging the CPU and still be showing the arrow pointer because it can still respond to you (think software HD video decoding). It could also be showing an hourglass and not using any
      • Thanks for the well-written response.

        My situation is this: We use CAD software to design mechanical things. On slow computers, after every command input the computer has to process the command. Obviously some commands take longer than others. When this happens, the cursor turns to an hourglass and the software will not respond to user input. If you check the Perf Monitor the program will frequently list as "Not Responding".

        I don't think CPU utilization will do the trick because I believe the CPU could
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jerf ( 17166 )
          I'm by no means a windows guru, but I do know if Task Manager says the task is "not responding", that means it is no longer responding to Windows messages. The easiest way for that to happen is for the program to be single-threaded, and in the middle of a lengthy computation, thus never getting back to the message pump, which is what you're getting.

          You might be able to write a relatively simple program that just periodically sends a message to the window and looks for a response; if it doesn't get it in a c
          • There is also an API called IsHungAppWindow [] that can be used to test whether a program is "not responding" in the task manager sense of not having pumped a message for five seconds.
        • I'd suggest a stopwatch. The trouble with what you're after is that as the computer is spinning its hourglass its actually working on your behalf. If you had a better app that wasn't quite so single-threaded, then you'd be happier, but the app itself wouldn't go any quicker.

          You could use CPU usage, because with a faster CPU, the app would perform its work quicker too so all in all, you'd get more done in less time. Given its single-threaded, no-UI-response, I think the CPU will probably be at 100% while its
        • by Ifni ( 545998 )
          Unfortunately, I don't think that checking this would yield useful results anyway. On the faster computer, the time the hourglass is shown might be cut in half for any given task, but with the user then able to perform more tasks, he'd probably just end up seeing the hourglass for the same amount of time - it'd be spread across twice as many tasks (using greatly simplified math), sure, but your metric would still show little improvement on the new system over a given time period (8 hour work day). Plus, e
      • In the real (non-Slashdot) world, a program isn't working when you can't click any buttons or type into any fields. i.e. when the hourglass icon is up. That's what the poster is asking about, not CPU usage.
    • by phorm ( 591458 )
      I'm fairly sure there are programs to monitor+log overall CPU usage. Why not just spit out some nice graphs or charts with that for the boss-man?
  • Google It? (Score:2, Redundant)

    I googled windows priority command line and the 6th result was titled: " - Windows Tip: Launching a low priority ..."

    Here's the link []

    Executive Summary:
    It turns out there are several solutions to this problem. A simple approach is to use the start command to launch each job with Low priority as follows:
    start /low /b job5.exe -i input.dat
    • Re:Google It? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:46AM (#16045041)
      I googled windows priority command line and the 6th result was titled: " - Windows Tip: Launching a low priority ..."

      Did you Google a little farther and find the answer to the question that was asked? The network rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, not somebody sitting at the computer. The start command won't work unless the network renderer is modified. What he needs is for Windows to always recognize that .exe is low priority so that mode is set regardless of how the app is actually started. He's already got the 'use human interaction to make the process low priority' bit working, so elite Googling skills didn't save the day.

      • Well, I hoped that he would use the information I gave him and adapt it for his needs. You can't expect me to do everything for him, can you? If the rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, why can't it spawn a batch file which spawns 3DSM in low priority mode instead?

        Ah, so my elite googling skills DID save the day!
        • "You can't expect me to do everything for him, can you?"

          Nope. All that you're expected to do is understand the question before you answer.

          "If the rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, why can't it spawn a batch file which spawns 3DSM in low priority mode instead?"

          He can't change the code.

          "Ah, so my elite googling skills DID save the day!"

          Not even close. Your impression of Jim Carrey talking out of his rear, however, is spot on.

    • by Rigodi ( 1000552 )
      should not it be : start /b /low [job] ?
  • Wrapper (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bromskloss ( 750445 ) <auxiliary.addres ... acy @ g> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:52AM (#16044574)
    Mabye replace "3sdmax.exe" with a shellscript that runs the real "3dsmax.exe" with the correct priority. You might have to work out how the renderer gets its data, so your shellscript can make sure it isn't dropped somewhere along the way.
  • There are versions of nice and renice for windows. One set is in Cygwin--in the sh-utils package.
  • "I know there is a command line that sets any .exe to low, but that also starts the program."
    Just make an alias to 3dsmax.exe that actually invokes the one-liner you are talking of. No?
    • "Google doesn't work for people anymore"

      Evidently not, since your search didn't reveal a solution either. He needs the process to start up at low priority when other programs call it, not just when a shortcut is clicked. You're right, though. Google doesn't work for people anymore, especially those that don't understand the question.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I don't have any answer, but am pleased to see Ask Slashdot offering up a real technical question, not just a pretext for uninformed ranting.
    • I don't have any answer, but am pleased to see Ask Slashdot offering up a real technical question, not just a pretext for uninformed ranting.
      Fucking n00b, he asked a sensible Windoze question, didn't mention Linux/OS alternatives to 3dMax, omitted an attack on Liberals, (or Creationists), didn't say whether or not he was a gun owner, and failed to include a joke about the French, Apple or gays.
      What sort of argument does he expect to get with that attitude?
      • yes, but read the comments for reasons why Linux thread scheduling algorithm is superior to Windows, and that on a *proper* multi user system hourglasses are never ever seen, and why in Soviet Russia your poor performance results in you being squished into an hourglass by Ms Portman. :-)
      • From your response, I'd say he's in the wrong place for an Argument. This is Abuse.
      • Indeed, he also failed to mention that the solution he asks for should actually be applied in some critical process for a top-500 company! How did this ever enter ask slashdot! :)
  • While we are at it, I've got a related windows admin question...

    How can I pin a process into RAM and make sure that all of its pages stay resident? I don't have source either, it's a proprietary app. The system will push it out of RAM in favor of buffercache, but that is a very sub-optimal for this guy, because he always ends up paging tons of stuff back in while the user sits there for a minute or two wondering if the thing crashed or what...
    • by TheLink ( 130905 )
      Simple. Set swap to zero ;).

      Seriously if a user is waiting for a minute or two for things to swap back in, and the user thinks that is too long, then the swap file is too big.

      Set it to something smaller and fixed, till the user only has to wait X seconds for things to swap back in in typical/worse case, where X is considered by the users to be a tolerable amount.

      IMO the people who talk about setting swap to multiples of RAM are silly. It's little to do with multiples of RAM and more the sort of apps you run
      • Seriously if a user is waiting for a minute or two for things to swap back in, and the user thinks that is too long, then the swap file is too big.

        You can't be serious. There is no such thing as "too much swap." If there is, something is seriously broken. All I want is for the system to treat process text and data as more important to keep in RAM than buffercache. I'm not running out of RAM, it is a single 1.2-1.4GB app on a 2GB system.
        • by TheLink ( 130905 )
          Of course there is such a thing as too much swap. Go figure out how long it takes for a normal ATA drive to page in and out 500GB of stuff.

          You may be different but I believe that most people want their PCs or applications to run out of memory way before that point.

          Because I believe it is rare to have a scenario where people have thousands of small/medium sized loaded applications taking up 500GB in swap, and only wake up and run once in a long while. Or one where users intentionally run a single app that ta
          • Of course there is such a thing as too much swap. Go figure out how long it takes for a normal ATA drive to page in and out 500GB of stuff.

            What you are talking about is not a case of having too much swap, it is a case of using too much memory.

            I CLEARLY defined in my first post that I am NOT using too much memory, but that the OS is behaving stupidly and paging out the application when there is still available physical RAM. Your responses have neither addressed my original question, much less come close to
            • by TheLink ( 130905 )
              Well you claimed there's no such thing as too much swap.

              And in your case, too much swap is probably anything much above 0MB.

              I doubt you've even tried my suggestion. If you don't like that answer well that's just too bad, your loss.

              Feel free to waste your time waiting for swap and grumbling about it.
        • by joshetc ( 955226 )
          Sure there is such a thing as too much swap. My main rig has 2GB of ram, I've never run out. I routinely use anywhere from 250-500MB of swap. This absolutely should not be. There is no reason to swap when I am nowhere near running out of an order of magnitude faster physical RAM. The best solution, disabling swap isn't even an option as many programs require it.
          • How much swap you use is irrelevant; pages are put into swap so that when everything goes to hell you're not waiting for large amounts of memory to get moved over. The behaviour that you have described is correct, provided it isn't getting the data from swap instead of RAM.
      • This is a sore point for me.

        I've got an XP box with 1.5GB RAM. Just checking Process Manager, I've got ~900MB RAM free - and less than 500MB of apps using RAM. Windows' default paging algorithm aggressively swaps LRU blocks, so regardless of whether I'm using all of my RAM (or more than 30%) I can count on windows swapping for a good amount of time during my work day - especially if I've had an application open and unused for a few hours.

        Your suggestion about disabling SWAP works - application access is r
    • Easy, just set the sticky bit. You young Windows whippersnappers.

      (A joke, I know that these days the sticky bit DOESNT pin things in RAM)
  • Simple (Score:2, Interesting)

    by addaon ( 41825 )
    Just change priority.c and recompile the kernel.

    Oh, they don't let you do that? Sounds like your "soft"ware is a little brittle.
    • MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is how it's done in the real world, major 3d houses demand full source code to their entire tool chain.
    • I'm also scratching my head on this one. I think the answer by the parent is NOT OFF TOPIC. It demonstrates why windoze sucks. If one is hesitant about simple kernel recompiles, then one could do the following:
      1. log in as a low priority user
      2. execute the following line of shell code: wine 3dsmax.exe [3dsmax program arguments]
      3. pipe the results, and move on.

      "slowly, one by one, the penguins steal my sanity" - Unknown
  • If you've got the source to 3dsmax, there's bound to be an API like 'nice' that you can insert to drop priority.

    If not, it might possibly work to rename 3dsmax.exe to 3dsmax_real.exe and write 3dsmax.bat (this depends entirely on how the code was written):

    start /low 3dsmax_real.exe

    Actually, if that doesn't work, you could do basically the same thing in a C wrapper program to be called 3dsmax.exe.

  • Get a copy of Win32 'nice' here: []

    Put this in NICE3D.CMD:

    FOR /L %Z in (1,1,0) DO NICE -i 3dsmax.exe > NUL:
  • by mr_rattles ( 303158 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:21AM (#16044819) Homepage
    If you're a programmer you could grab the source code for a utility I wrote to kill processes by name as they appear and modify it to change the priority any time the process appears. The tool is called Process Hunter Daemon. You can get the source code at my homepage ( ndows/#phunterd).

    The benefit of going this route would be that it doesn't matter how someone started the 3D Studio Max executable, it would always get changed to low priority. Actually I might do the modification myself because I'm kind of digging the idea. The list of programs that ProcessHunterD looks for is configurable, you could just as easily make the priority configurable as well so you could change it to give other executables higher priority if you'd like.
  • by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:22AM (#16044826)
    I'd love to know if there's a way to limit ALL processes to a certain percentage of total CPU... say 75%. There's no reason programs should routinely be able to run up every bit of processing power.
    • Why not? Why would you want CPU power to just sit there, unused?
      • My understanding of the grandparent is that the system should limit any individual process to some substantial fraction of available time, in order that a small reserve should remain available to initiate new processes, etc. If windows were to adopt this simple expedient, it would be substantially more responsive and useable, more Linux-like, if you will.
        • by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @01:56PM (#16046209)
          not really. The windows task scheduler works on the principle that every process with the same priority gets equal share of the CPU. Now, if 1 app wants 100% of the CPU then it's going to be asking for it and using as much of its time slices as it can get, other apps get the same (if they want it - obviously most apps sit there twiddling their virtual thumbs waiting for the user, the disk, the network, etc). So if 2 apps want 100% each (as when you start an app whilst another is well busy) then they will each get 50%.. and take twice as long to do whatever it was they were doing, thus appearing to slow down user responsiveness.

          Usually the foreground app (ie window) gets a little bit extra so it makes Windows *more* responsive, but again, that doesn't help you if you're waiting for an app to start (as it'll be in the background...)(you can turn this feature off if you like - system control panel to make it more server like).

          So, with the system proposed, the starting app would not start any quicker - it would still want 75% of the CPU, as would the running app. The only benefit would be that the CPU had 25% time to sit there doing nothing. If you think you could use another app while those 2 fought over their 75% CPU resources, think that the app you want to use is also limited to 75% (and assuming you make it work and not sit mostly idle) it would be grabbing CPU time away from the 2 original apps, making them slower still.

          If you want more response, give 1 app a lower priority and Windows will leave it for a while until the higher priority app goes idle. I do not recommend doing this for explorer.exe :-)

          Incidentally, Linux uses a weighted round-robin scheduler (windows uses a plain one that gives equal time to all runnign aps of the same priority) that gives less time to apps the more they use the CPU, this is probably why you feel Linux is more responsive - an interactive app will spend more of its time waiting for the user, so when it does need to do something, it is given a larger amount of time than its peers. If you use it a lot though, you'd find it gets slower over time. (so if you have a text editor and a compiler running, the text editor gets more CPU time when it wants it, but if you set the editor to do a lengthy 100% CPU task, you'd find its responsiveness was not as good when it was finished).

      • Because some programs have a habit of shooting up to 100% (iexplore.exe, explorer.exe). I mean, just completely randomly. You minimize firefox and just see the white void behind it while windows is playing with itself. This is retarded in this day and age.

        And whatever you were doing, you can't now, because the system is busy. So even though you know it's wrong, you try surfing the web or opening a file to pass the time, and it actually takes longer than process1+process2 completing by themselves (the med
    • So you would like some program to insert a wait cycle for every three cycles used? I'd much rather be able to set process priorities.
      • The basic problem, really, is this...

        Say you have a 3D graphics outfit with a renderfarm, and you use both 3dsMax and maya. Let's say you submit a network rendering job from both.

        Now the 3dsMax renderer of choice - say, mental ray - sucks up 99% of the CPU on the render job, leaving the maya render job to do crap all until the 3dsMax render job is done.
        So you switch the 3dsMax process to Low Priority... but now the maya render job sucks up nearly all the CPU, and the 3dsMax render job does next-to-zilch un
        • by afidel ( 530433 )
          Once you get to the point of running two different render apps you need a job controll program. These are programs written specifically to controll how much total CPU time a job gets based on priority and/or job cost. The better ones can split your compute farm up any way you choose limited only by how well you can map policy into their language.
    • Process Lasso (Score:3, Informative)

      by johu ( 55313 )
      You can do that with Process Lasso. []
    • There is a program that will do something like that... essentially the harder and longer a process hits the CPU, the lower it will make the priority... just got to remember the name, now... ;)
  • There's a tool called AutoIt that lets you script various things in Windows that I use to accomplish the same thing you're asking for. Basically, I have a looped script that runs on low priority in the background... whenever it sees certain applications running it changes their priority to the level I want. In some cases, it might kill one application or another depending on whether it sees certain other applications running - for instance, I used to have it set to kill all my P2P apps whenever it sees an o
    • If your renderer doesn't have a Low Priority option already (e.g. Brazil r/s does), then Auto-It and similar methods (watching for the process) is your best bet. For those suggesting the command line options, please keep in mind that I think he is alluding to the 3dsmax process being started by a network rendering application such as the default BackBurner. There's a ton of information that gets passed back and forth that would make a command line option very difficult to write up.

      I also see Auto-It in us
  • How do you do the same thing with processor affinity
  • Since when did Slashdot become a technical discussion forum, in lieu of Arstechnica's forums??
  • ProcessTamer (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    did u try Process Tamer [] ?
    I didn't try it, but if it does what it says on the tin then this is what you want.
  • Runprio []

    C:\download\batchfiles>RUNPRIO.EXE /?
    RunPrio is copyright EnterNet Sweden 1999. All rights reserved.

    Usage: runprio [-x] [-t n] []
    where is one of "low", "normal", "high", "realtime"

    -x : Print exit code of
    -t n : Timeout after n seconds - kill the command

    Example: runprio -x high cmd /c echo Hello world!
    at 00:00 runprio -t 600 low mybatch.bat

  • by Anonymous Coward
    You can also permanently set the process affinity mask of any executable by using Imagecfg.exe off the Windows 2000 Server Resource Kit CD (or find a copy hiding out online). I used to have to do that to fix problems with Mplayer back when I ran a dual AthlonMP system and a *shudder* soundblaster card.
    • by afidel ( 530433 )
      I would mod you up but I already responded in this thread. This is EXACTLY the answer the article submitter needs!
  • by Grotus ( 137676 ) <rlmoser&earthlink,net> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:42PM (#16046942) Homepage
    For this particular problem, the easiest solution would be to use a startup MAXscript on your render nodes which sets the priority [].

    Or you could use a rendering manager which lets you control the priority of the render nodes, like Deadline [] from Frantic Films.
  • ProcessTamer (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Try ProcessTamer []. It lets you define rules and automatically raises/lowers the priority of "misbehaving" processes. Quite a nice app, too bad it has an annoying free registration procedure (as does most of the software on that site). --CK
  • One problem that I'm running into quite frequently at work with our overloaded and underspecced NAS box, is that our file copies tend to be very high on CPU usage. We have an HP server with RAID 5 configured, and feeding two simultaneous feeds of streaming video over gigabit networking, we use 50% of our resources. This makes things nearly impossible to use when we need to copy in -new- material, while the old is still being sent out for broadcast. Is there any way to specifically lower priority for file

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll