Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'gorchestopher h'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• How do I prevent ISPs from killing downloads of files in mid-transfer?

  - by Gorchestopher H

  I run a small website with a few users, low traffic, mostly to share personal mp3 files with a small community. Depending on their ISP, my users can't always download or stream larger files. By larger I mean larger than 1MB. Essentially the host either stops sending, or the client stops receiving. One of the links along the connection chain simply ends its connection before the transfer completes Trace-route shows no connection issues. There are no connection issues with short transfers that don't take more than a few seconds. It's these 10 second transfers that just end up ending. Just doing a straight download with a direct link can yield this error if you have the wrong ISP. Strangely enough, this is most common with users with ISPs who are essentially independent providers that buy service via a fiber link. Unfortunately these providers aren't very knowledgeable, are unable to do any testing, and insist it's a problem with the host. I have gotten my host to transfer my site to different servers of their, to the same effect. Nearly identical sites (affiliate sites actually) experience no such issue. What can I be doing to further troubleshoot this matter? How can I prove that someone is dropping the ball, and identify who that party is? Can I do a 5Mb traceroute? EDIT Maybe I can clear up some misconceptions with my question: The files are not very large. They are simply over 2Mb. The users do not have "slow" connections, they are at least 5mbps. This "time out" happens very quickly, in the realm of 5 seconds, so I don't know if it's a timeout or not. The user often gets 1 or 2Mb in this chunk of time. I have tried streaming with a flash player. I have tried saving the target. Forcing the download. I have tried allowing the browser to stream the file. I have tried different browsers (FF, IE, Chrome). Users are able to download identical files when on different hosts.

  Read the article

• Visual C#, Large Arrays, and LOH Fragmentation. What is the accepted convention?

  - by Gorchestopher H

  I have an other active question HERE regarding some hopeless memory issues that possibly involve LOH Fragmentation among possibly other unknowns. What my question now is, what is the accepted way of doing things? If my app needs to be done in Visual C#, and needs to deal with large arrays to the tune of int[4000000], how can I not be doomed by the garbage collector's refusal to deal with the LOH? It would seem that I am forced to make any large arrays global, and never use the word "new" around any of them. So, I'm left with ungraceful global arrays with "maxindex" variables instead of neatly sized arrays that get passed around by functions. I've always been told that this was bad practice. What alternative is there? Is there some kind of function to the tune of System.GC.CollectLOH("Seriously") ? Are there possibly some way to outsource garbage collection to something other than System.GC? Anyway, what are the generally accepted rules for dealing with large (85Kb) variables?

  Read the article

• Why must "stride" in the System.Drawing.Bitmap constructor be a multiple of 4?

  - by Gorchestopher H

  I am writing an application that requires me to take a proprietary bitmap format (an MVTec Halcon HImage) and convert it into a System.Drawing.Bitmap in C#. The only proprietary functions given to me to help me do this involve me writing to file, except for the use of a "get pointer" function. This function is great, it gives me a pointer to the pixel data, the width, the height, and the type of the image. My issue is that when I create my System.Drawing.Bitmap using the constructor: new System.Drawing.Bitmap(width, height, stride, format, scan) I need to specify a "stride" that is a multiple of 4. This may be a problem as I am unsure what size bitmap my function will be hit with. Supposing I end up with a bitmap that is 111x111 pixels, I have no way to run this function other than adding a bogus column to my image or subtracting 3 columns. Is there a way I can sneak around this limitation?

  Read the article

• Using `<List>` when dealing with pointers in C#.

  - by Gorchestopher H

  How can I add an item to a list if that item is essentially a pointer and avoid changing every item in my list to the newest instance of that item? Here's what I mean: I am doing image processing, and there is a chance that I will need to deal with images that come in faster than I can process (for a short period of time). After this "burst" of images I will rely on the fact that I can process faster than the average image rate, and will "catch-up" eventually. So, what I want to do is put my images into a <List> when I acquire them, then if my processing thread isn't busy, I can take an image from that list and hand it over. My issue is that I am worried that since I am adding the image "Image1" to the list, then filling "Image1" with a new image (during the next image acquisition) I will be replacing the image stored in the list with the new image as well (as the image variable is actually just a pointer). So, my code looks a little like this: while (!exitcondition) { if(ImageAvailabe()) { Image1 = AcquireImage(); ImgList.Add(Image1); } if(ImgList.Count 0) { ProcessEngine.NewImage(ImgList[0]); ImgList.RemoveAt(0); } } Given the above, how can I ensure that: - I don't replace all items in the list every time Image1 is modified. - I don't need to pre-declare a number of images in order to do this kind of processing. - I don't create a memory devouring monster. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

1