Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 16:31 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:uuMACxRzKHA.2436(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >> Red Herring! It does not address my need to keep my real >> time process memory resident. Its just a bunch of >> extraneous details intended to bypass rather than address >> the point. > > That is the third time you said that. Do you think you > got your 'Ah ha'? > > First of all, you never mentioned you were running this > this vapor process of yours in real time priority status. I kept saying that it had to be as fast as possible. I mentioned a 500 ms maximum response time. How does this not add up to real time? > > You were told you can raised the thread and process > classification but that DOES NOT, I REPEAT IT DOES NOT > stop the process from being preempted. So it DOES NOT > have 100% running status. It CAN NOT PHYSICALLY BE > POSSIBLE with all the THREADS running. This has been one > of the key points that continues to go over your head. It > just has higher a priority classification under the > Windows Scheduling logic. This is why I told you you would > be better off running DOS under a SINGLE CPU system? Yeah right, like DOS can really handle multiple Gigabytes. The last DOS that I know of had to do all sorts of tricks to get to 16 MB. (Switching back and forth between protected and real mode, using tiny shared swap areas) > > 2nd, the issue was NOT your process, but your DATA. That > was the focus. > > 3rd, you haven't tried to any of this (because you don't > have software, just vaporware) to show that a hog in > normal thread classification, might be a monster hog in > Real Time classification. That is why it is NOT > recommended and you only do so when you are nopt creating > others pressures in the system. A Real Time process is > NOT to kill others, it has to appear like its running all > the time without interrupting anything else. > > So please. > > -- > HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 16:33 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:ebsQrxRzKHA.2436(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >>> Oh brother. A patent troll then, a patent troll today! >>> Its all vapor! >> >> You continue to use the term "patent troll" cluelessly. > > You don't have a product - you are a PATENT TROLL. > > -- > HLS Putting it caps does not make it any more clueless. Joe already corrected you on this, and Joe has three patents himself.
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 16:38 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message news:hr2qq5tb9p5rlkk8vdetjlkusv3fk9n7cd(a)4ax.com... > See below... > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:31:36 -0500, "Peter Olcott" > <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >> >>"Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message >>news:OxTzNBRzKHA.264(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> We just use IIS for our intranet web applications. We >>> can >>> install it on our servers as they are manufactured and >>> it's really easy to set up. >>> >>> There are restrictions to doing web applications of >>> course, but you can do a lot of coding server-side if >>> you >>> know the server will have access and permission to >>> update >>> areas on the intranet. >>> >>> Tom >> >>My trick is to make this web server installed a the client >>site have as close to as possible impenetrable security >>because I am adding trade secret to my intellectual >>property >>protection. I think that I have this essentially figured >>out. >> >>The one part that I do not have completely figured out is >>exactly how I can make it close to impossible for anyone >>to >>physically open the machine without detection. I have >>figured out ways to make this mostly (but not completely) >>moot. I have also figured out ways to make case access >>security extremely difficult to circumvent. > *** > The Standard Model of physical security goes like this: > > It is buried twelve feet deep in a 3-foot-thick concrete > vault in the middle of an active > artillery range in the middle of a secure military base. > > For dead-certain security, there are no wires leading into > it, and it is turned off, and > there is no nearby power supply. > > Another model surrounds it by vicious pit bulls, but > unless you have done background > checks on the pit bulls, you cannot really be sure this is > safe. One of them might be in > the pay of your competitor. A pound of prime rib can buy > a lot of loyalty in a pit bull. > > The simplest model is that you, personally, guard the > machine, armed with some illegal > automatic weapon. That's 24/7, so don't plan on sleeping, > eating, or dealing with bodily > functions. > > All other methods are not considered trustworthy in the > absolute sense. > > [A friend once had a tour of the NSA. In one room, inside > a Faraday cage, there was a > battery power supply running a PDP-11 with a hard drive > attached. And a Marine guard, > armed with a .45 pistol. His orders: should anyone > attempt to enter the room by force, he > was to draw his weapon, and shoot the disk. Now THAT'S > physical security!] > > Physical access is not your problem; this is the problem > of your ISP, and their physical > security system. This is what you are paying for. Not > just a CPU, a bit of wire, and a > UPS system! > joe Two different things are being assessed: (1) Webserver on the internet (2) A webserver rented to the client at the client's location. I spoke to Phil Zimmerman about his stuff once, this seems like it could form one essential element of a sufficient basis. > >> >>> >>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> news:toydnSprNqitejHWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>>> "Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message >>>> news:uiYs3GQzKHA.5040(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>> Hi Peter, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the proximity is the only gating factor. >>>>> Bandwidth for connected servers, the path of the data, >>>>> etc. all matter. If your users are directly >>>>> connecting >>>>> to your server it may make a difference. It must make >>>>> some sort of difference because every professional >>>>> download site I know of has multiple "mirror" sites so >>>>> that you can select one closest to you. If nothing >>>>> else, distributing it may make some people use other >>>>> servers and spread the cycles needed to read and send >>>>> the data off a little less arduous. >>>>> >>>>> Tom >>>> >>>> Yes, and it also just occured to me that in special >>>> cases >>>> I may even be able to provide an intranet webserver. >>>> >> > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] > email: newcomer(a)flounder.com > Web: http://www.flounder.com > MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 16:46 Peter Olcott wrote: >> First of all, you never mentioned you were running this >> this vapor process of yours in real time priority status. > > I kept saying that it had to be as fast as possible. I > mentioned a 500 ms maximum response time. How does this not > add up to real time? First, 500ms is probably too HIGH for a process running under a real time classification. It has to be faster. I won't waste time explaining the WHY - go read about it in all the books, googleland, etc. What you don't understand AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN and AGAIN is what is a preemptive operating system and how it works. To say that a process must be active for at least 500ms, well, you really are going to be put a hurting on the system that will now have to halt all threads from running at all until Mister Real Time OCR is finished! You really have no feel for any of this and since you will won't believe people with massive experience in the area, well, you will have to just do it yourself and maybe in 10 years you will finally figure it out. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 16:48
Peter Olcott wrote: > "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ebsQrxRzKHA.2436(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Peter Olcott wrote: >> >>>> Oh brother. A patent troll then, a patent troll today! >>>> Its all vapor! >>> You continue to use the term "patent troll" cluelessly. >> You don't have a product - you are a PATENT TROLL. >> >> -- >> HLS > > Putting it caps does not make it any more clueless. Joe > already corrected you on this, and Joe has three patents > himself. Yeah, but JOE, like NORMAL PEOPLE actually produced something, did the research to provide theories, etc. You are a PATENT TROLL. -- HLS |