Jump to content

Cat

Members
  • Content Count

    813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Cat

  1. hooovahh -- what you're talking about is one of our options. Shaun -- we hunted around and those commands don't seem to be available on LinuxRT On top of the "standby" issue, after much back and forth with NI, we discovered that the system drive in the IC isn't removable. And it can't be encrypted. While we probably could have worked around the former, the latter is a show-stopper for our user. So, looks like we're ditching the NI "Industrial Controller" and going to someone else's "Industrial Computer". Plain jane Windows 10, 2 removeable drive slots, all of which will mak
  2. Hi all (no, I'm not really retired yet, lol), My latest toy is an IC-3173. I need to be able to programmatically (LV, of course) put it into a reduced power state (analogous to Windows standby/hibernate/sleep). And then "wake it up" every hour for 10 minutes. I'm running LinuxRT. Does it even have a concept of standby/hibernate/sleep? Cat
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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"?
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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!
  13. Grrr. Yeah, the schedule change messed up my plans there. Hopefully next year I'll be there and can buy you a belated round.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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...
  17. 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.
  18. Cat

    Wait. What?

    Am I the last person on Earth to realize that NIWeek is moving to May in 2017?!? Clueless Cat
  19. A tangential issue when using Ethernet conversion dongles... We use the USB to Ethernet variety. A problem I ran into recently was when we had to communicate with other NICs that used jumbo frames, and the dongles we had didn't support that. Just something to keep in mind. (I found a USB to Ethernet dongle from Anker that does jumbo frames) Cat
  20. According to the calendar, I'm eligible to retire in 1 year, 1 month, and 1 day. I'm doing the code cleanup for my (so far hypothetical) replacement. Or I just retire, and come back the next day as a contractor for twice what I'm making now. :-)
  21. Ah, the good ole days... I only use the S&V toolkit, which I purchased long before OOP was a gleam in NI's eye, and never had a need to upgrade. Other than that, I use very little code that I didn't write (instrument drivers and OpenG being the major exceptions). This means, of course, that a lot easier ways to do things have probably been developed over the years, and I'm just too unaware/lazy/stubborn to switch over. hooovahh, I think you've convinced me to at least build a few of my exe's with that 8.x box unchecked and see how horrible it's going to be to "fix" it. Or I
  22. Yup, all my executables are in 8.x layout. I will admit the one time this has been an issue was when I used two hardware drivers that were in lvlibs, and they both had an "Init.vi". I just renamed the two vis and went on happily. I haven't seen a need to use lvlibs. I am currently on a team of one, and I only distribute exes, not source code, so the public/private aspect of lvlibs hasn't been necessary. I organize via directories. I guess I gave up on LabVIEW libraries back when one of my llbs went over 1.44MB and I couldn't fit it on one floppy anymore. :-)
  23. Here's one most of you probably haven't thought about for a few years. I built an application for someone else, and when the exe was run on their computer, it started complaining about missing vis. I realized this probably meant the "Use LabVIEW 8.x file layout" button got unchecked somehow, so I fixed that and all was fine. Which started me thinking... Other than the issue LV 8.x and earlier builds have with vis with the same name, is there any technical reason to NOT use the LabVIEW 8.x file layout when making an executable? I don't use LVOOP, and think it's Bad Programming to hav
  24. And here I thought I was just imagining that long-time posters were disappearing... Personally, I have been posting less for a variety of reasons, some of which have been mentioned already. 1) As I get more gray-haired, I am being moved (pushed?) up the management chain to the point where I am doing less and less "real" work, AKA programming, and more paper-pushing. 2) There have been fewer and fewer new features in LV for me to struggle with and commiserate with you all over. 3) Also part of getting older -- I'm looking at the light at the end of the tunnel with respect to retirement a
  25. I am currently running two separate applications on the same computer that are using TCP loopback to send an aggregate 132MB/sec between them. So it's definitely finally working in LV15. However, I looked thru the LV bug fix lists and couldn't find the CAR anywhere. As for other options, back when I originally had this problem, I eventually settled on writing files to a RAM disk as the communications path. It wasn't fancy, but it worked out well.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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