Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cat last won the day on May 12 2017

Cat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


About Cat

  • Rank
    The 500 club
  • Birthday October 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Maryland, USA

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2015
  • Since

Recent Profile Visitors

6,911 profile views
  1. So I'm upgrading from LV2016 to LV2019. Or attempting to, anyway. I have to use the offline version, and it keeps bailing at something like "ni-opc-support", and giving me a very unhelpful, "check your internet connection" message. Hello, this is supposed to be an offline installation?!? My other complaint is that I've installed every version of LV since 2.5 in a "LabVIEW" folder -- no version number added -- and I can't figure out how to make the NI Package Manager let me do that. So I've ended up with 3 or 4 different LabVIEWxxxx directories (depending on how far things get before
  2. We "upgraded" to Windows 10 version 1903 (from 1803 or 1809, I don't remember) and iperf3 went from ~450 MB/s to ~2 GB/s. Yay! Unfortunately, 1) the IA gods have not deemed 1903 worthy so we're not supposed to even have it installed, 2) there is question of whether this a fix, or something that will disappear in the next version, and 3) ironically, 1903 is causing issues with various types of hardware NICs (not a problem for us -- so far). But, for the moment, we've got something that works. Thanks to all for responses, and thanks to Gribo for suggesting iperf3. It's made i
  3. We could try running iperf, just to confirm it's the loopback adapter and not the code. But as I said, we've run the same code with 2 hardware NICs (10G) connected on the same computer and it works fine.
  4. The point of the loopback adapter is to use TCP to communicates to pass data between two different executables ( one C and one LV) on the same machine. The machine has 2- 1G and 4- 10G physical network adapters. Can you explain more what you mean by "link could be fully local"?
  5. We've set the loopback adapter the same way we've set up hardware NICs (at least as much as is applicable). I'll confirm that QOS and Nagle specifically have been dealt with. The C dev tried fastpath (even tho it was supposedly deprecated a while back) but that didn't help any. The computer has a very fast CPU. Two of them, actually. I guess the implication is that the hardware NICs are doing something the CPUs can't.
  6. Hi all! Long time, no talk to. 🙂 I'm supposedly retired, but then decided to go over to the Dark Side and become a contractor. We'll see how long that lasts... Current issue: A C developer and I are sending data via a MS loopback adapter between a C app and a LV app on the same machine (Windows 10). Past iterations have worked great (after that little bug in LV11 was fixed). The new system, however, needs a much higher continuous data thruput -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 MB/s. The loopback adapter is topping out somewhere around 500MB/s. If we switch from
  7. I use ini files. If I have complex data types, or large amounts of data required, the ini points to files where that data is stored. Also, LabVIEW annoyingly creates an ini file for every executable, so I figure I might as well use it. Cat
  8. Crud. I replied to this, but it never showed up in the feed. Huh. Anyway, yes, I'm turning this over to one of our C folks to deal with. I'm not sure if I can get the .NET version past our Information Assurance zealots, but a regular old dll I can call with a CIN will be fine.
  9. I just discovered that my latest needs-to-be-done-yesterday project requires communications via an Apache Qpid broker (v0.4 and AMQP 0-10). Since I didn't even know what AMQP was before yesterday, I'm a bit behind the curve on this. I have downloaded LabbitMQ, but I'm assuming that won't work with Apache Qpid? I was hoping that the whole open standard thing meant that different implementations of AMQP should be able to talk with each other, but the following link regarding interoperability between the two seems to say that this often isn't the case. There is a Native AMQP client fo
  10. Thanks for the process walk-thru. Unfortunately when I first read it I didn't know enough for it to help. Now it make perfect sense!
  11. Grrr. Yeah, the schedule change messed up my plans there. Hopefully next year I'll be there and can buy you a belated round.
  12. Wow. So after a day or so of flailing around I finally got this working. I think I only ended up making 2 changes to the Example.vi, the rest of the time I was trying to figure out all the networking stuff to make it actually work. Some of that time was spent combing thu this link for little hints. Some was spent figuring out what firewall setting I needed to turn off. Along the way I learned about symbolic links and how to configure an Apache web server. It was fun! Thanks hooovahh! And thanks to everyone else who contributed to this code.
  13. Maybe it's because it's Monday and I haven't recovered from either Cinco de Mayo (tequila) or the Kentucky Derby (bourbon) yet, but this one is twisting my little brain. After years of managing to avoid LabView and the Interwebs, somebody got the great idea of running some of my code via a web browser. Sure! I say, LabVIEW's got stuff to do that! Three hours later and it just ain't working right. I've read all sorts of things like: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/371361M-01/lvconcepts/ws_distributing/ http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/371361L-01/lvhowto/enabling_t
  14. I used to do Approach 2, then a user moved an exe to a different computer -- that of course didn't have the dependencies installed for that exe. Now I do Approach 1 which works best if you don't always jump on every LV yearly upgrade and SP. I tend to upgrade every other year, so can go for a long time without needing the "Full" installer. Approach 3 is fine -- unless of course you aren't tied to a network, or don't have the concept of a "server" in your network...
  15. Cat

    Wait. What?

    Well crud. I was actually starting to schedule some stuff around NIWeek -- in August. I've been telling the Big Boss if they send me, I might consider not retiring next year. But May would be hard to work in. I have to agree about the heat, tho. Austin in August is, umm, toasty.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.