Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 17:28 Peter Olcott wrote: >> 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. > > It is not that I don't believe or fully comprehend your > point of view, it is that you continue to fail to see the > subtle nuances indicating that your vast wealth of knowledge > does not perfectly apply in this given situation. Oh but it does 100% You just haven't realize it yet. I told you everything you needed to know - EVERYTHING - and after some a teeth pulled, you finally saw some things but still not others because you don't know how to implement or test the suggestions even when the CODE was handed over to you. What you don't realize is that there is nothing special about your wish list. You are just not competent enough to understand how to implement your wish list. Unfortunately, your patent troll mentality and arrogant, you doubt every one else experiences in real implementations, not a wish list. Its like you got this idea, you can't possibly believe anyone has done anything close to it, so you are complete denial that your ideas could be flawed. The more you talk the more you are looking like you have mental issues. -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 17:47 "Liviu" <lab2k1(a)gmail.c0m> wrote in message news:ejVaZpSzKHA.244(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >> "Liviu" <lab2k1(a)gmail.c0m> wrote... >>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>>> "Liviu" <lab2k1(a)gmail.c0m> wrote... >>>>> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote... >>>>>> >>>>>> You're not going to get anything done because you >>>>>> don't have >>>>>> the capacity to do so. You haven't yet in what 2-3 >>>>>> years? >>>>> >>>>> "I filed a provisional patent last August" >>>>> - Peter Olcott, 12/14/2001 >>>>> >>>>> (message #584 in thread of 881 at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/msg/f8161ee71a584326?hl=en) >>>> >>>> This patent issued in 2005. The task that I am >>>> undertaking is very >>>> large. >>> >>> I am not even trying to argue that now. But you are >>> talking _years_ >>> in the works, yet demonstrated deep confusion over >>> elementary matters >>> and ignored most of the sound advice volunteered here. >>> Then you say >>> "I do not have the time to learn inessential new >>> things". Nothing >>> personal, of course, and don't know that you even >>> realize it, but >>> that paints you somewhere between utterly arrogant and a >>> complete >>> kook. >> >> Ad hominem? How professional! > > Ad hominem? Not at all, I was just stating the obvious. > And, believe it > or not, my comment was meant to be helpful. Could have > even been, > had you only paid attention. Assuming you had a cause at > all, you are > not helping it, nor doing yourself any favors by abusing > people who took > your questions at face value, and belittling their advice. > But, instead, > you chose to parade the whole "I know better, it's below > me to try that, > read that, or debug that, and I am too busy with this > uniquely grandiose > patent to bother with such lowlife details as the rest of > you must do". > >> The confusion is not mine when experts agree that a >> real-time process >> does not need to be memory resident. > > I start to get a feeling that, years from now, you'll be > remembering > this thread as "Joe Newcomer vetted my design", much like > you say now > "I learned this from an email from Ward Cunningham" or "I > spoke to Phil > Zimmerman about his stuff once" when attempting to throw > your imagined > weight around. > > Bye now, > Liviu > > Hector and Joe have provided superb advice that directly lead to the current excellent HTTP based architecture for converting my OCR technology into a web application.
From: Peter Olcott on 26 Mar 2010 17:48 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:uH0DBtSzKHA.3264(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >>> 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. >> >> It is not that I don't believe or fully comprehend your >> point of view, it is that you continue to fail to see the >> subtle nuances indicating that your vast wealth of >> knowledge does not perfectly apply in this given >> situation. > > > Oh but it does 100% You just haven't realize it yet. > > I told you everything you needed to know - EVERYTHING - > and after some a teeth pulled, you finally saw some things > but still not others because you don't know how to > implement or test the suggestions even when the CODE was > handed over to you. > > What you don't realize is that there is nothing special > about your wish list. You are just not competent enough > to understand how to implement your wish list. > Unfortunately, your patent troll mentality and arrogant, > you doubt every one else experiences in real > implementations, not a wish list. Its like you got this > idea, you can't possibly believe anyone has done anything > close to it, so you are complete denial that your ideas > could be flawed. > > The more you talk the more you are looking like you have > mental issues. > > -- > HLS plonk
From: Hector Santos on 26 Mar 2010 19:05 Peter Olcott wrote: >> If I had to guess, the reason why you don't understand any >> of this is because you are clueless of the history of the >> INTEL chip starting with its Memory Segmentation Model to >> the introduction of Real Mode vs Protected Model hardware >> and operating systems, starting with DMPI. > > Introduced with the 80386, with the 80286 being the prequel. That is for the massive, Intel always had a preemptive mode CPU system starting with the 8086. But only their OS and software offered it full power. Windows didn't catch up until Windows 3.0 and before that the concentration was with the Microsoft/IBM OS/2 joint venture. Even so, the main point is DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT, more specifically the Memory Segmentation Model and Preemptive Thread - NOT Task - Switching? It is critically important because in the days where it was a consideration, the decision battle was between a Flat Memory Model that Motorola Chips offered and the Segmented Memory Model that Intel Chips offered - the two CPU vendors at the time for the two top microcomputer vendors: APPLE Macs - Motorola IBM/CLONE PC - Intel At the time, Apple and developers who wrote for Apple didn't have to worry about Memory Models to compile for. For Intel, you compile and developed for SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE and HUGE memory model compilations. When DPMI came, you were able to address even larger data models. But it came at a price with the heavy context switching between real and protected mode. One of the OS2/2 engineers once said it was like driving a Jaguar at 120 mph coming to a complete halt and starting again at 120 mph. But the OS and CPU did it so fast that its all appeared transparent to the Peter's of the world like its all in memory all the time - the same erroneous perception you have today. Finally, with 32 bit compilers coming along, the idea of compiling SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE and HUGE memory models simply didn't apply anymore. It was all one model - huge. But today, HUGE is relative. Now you need more and now you need additional helper technology to achieve this in efficient manner. What is been told to you that this helper technology needs to be PROGRAMMED. You just can't compiled a straight forward code with these huge memory needs and HOPE that by buying MORE MEMORY and MORE CORES that it will address your requirements. So unless YOU PROGRAM IN THE HELPER TECHNOLOGY, you will not get the benefits of your machine. -- HLS
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 26 Mar 2010 19:36
See below... On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:55:26 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in >message news:ua4qq5dblfdtsm0hdqnnbki8i47dt7o8ci(a)4ax.com... >> See below... >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:47:20 -0500, "Peter Olcott" >> <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:OYBobWLzKHA.5040(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You and Joe did give me some excellent help, and I >>>>> really >>>>> appreciate that. The idea to base my web application on >>>>> HTTP was the best. I do not appreciate the rudeness, >>>>> and >>>>> denigration. >>>> >>>> >>>> We don't appreciate you telling us to prove something >>>> that >>>> is pretty much common knowledge about Windows >>>> programming, >>>> and furthermore, we don't appreciate when you still >>>> don't >>>> believe us and we advise you explore all yourself even >>>> to >>>> he extent of providing simulation code and you still >>>> hassle us about it without even exploring it. When you >>>> finally did partially some testing, you have kiddie >>>> BUGS >>>> and still come back to us to help you figure it out. >>>> >>>> Then you tried to front us with some fictitious >>>> Specialty >>>> Group that has all the answers, and LIED about they were >>>> agreeing with you. When asked to tell us what group was >>>> this, silence. >>> >>>The group is comp.programming.threads >>>along with two linux groups and one unix group. >>> >>>Outlook express is losing some of the postings. I had to >>>reply to a reply to Pete's message yesterday because >>>Pete's >>>original message never made it to outlook express. >>> >>>> >>>> And even if you still didn't believe us, it isn't like >>>> the >>>> world is void of this information. This is all out >>>> there >>>> in googleland and you were given countless links, all >>>> ignored. But its all there, yet you still refuse to >>>> believe anything. >>> >>>I know for a fact that belief and disbelief are both >>>errors >>>of reasoning known as fallacies. Only comprehension of >>>reasoning is a reliable means of discerning truth from >>>falsehood. I apologize for not showing enough deference >>>for >>>the excellent free advice that you are providing. The >>>advice >>>that I could verify with reasoning was verifiably superb. >> *** >> And that is why I am getting frustrated with repeatedly >> telling you the obvious. The >> "obvious" is RUN THE $%&^ING TEST". You think you can >> solve problems by "pure reason". >> This applies only to abstract philosophical situations. A >> trained engineer knows that you >> cannot predict large system behavior from small examples; >> ask any chemical engineer how to >> scale up a process from a 1-liter lab to an industrial >> process that can turn out tons a >> day of whatever the product is. Scale up by three orders >> of magnitude and you have >> completely different problems. > >The tests continue to pass under Windows. The test passes in >a more limited sense under Linux. I can't understand, and >apparently the Linux experts do not know why that when I hit >450 MB of a 2 GB Linux system that reports that it is using >300 MB the test slows down by 500%. **** My first reaction is "This is characteristic of the working set manager kicking in" In fact, there is essentially almost no other explanation. Sounds like a 300MB working set limit. The next question is how often the working set manager kicks in and how it handles paging out. Windows handles this by explicitly trimming the working set by paging out the LRU pages in the process. This follows naturally from an understanding of the fundamental principles of operating systems. joe **** > >A 2 GB Linux system using a total of 750 MB slows down the >test from 90 MB/sec to 17MS/sec as soon as allocation >exceeds 450 MB. Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |