Search Results

Search found 5026 results on 202 pages for 'blocked threads'.

Page 15/202 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • .Net concurrency performance on client side

    - by Yaron Naveh
    I am writing a client side .Net application which is expected to use a lot of threads. I was warned that .Net performance is very bad when it comes to concurrency. While I am not writing a real-time application, I want to make sure my application is scalable (i.e. allows many threads) and somehow comparable to an equivalent cpp application. Anyone can share his experience? Anyone can refer me to a relevant benchmark?

    Read the article

  • Sockets: I/O Error 32

    - by Genesis
    Could someone please explain what an I/O Error 32 refers to in the context of a network socket? I have a multithreaded Socks5 server written using Poco SocketReactors and am getting this error when the server load reaches a certain point. The exception is thrown within my onReadable handlers at the same time across all threads which have connections associated with them. The only other thing I am doing within those threads is std::cout but I am not sure if this is a potential cause.

    Read the article

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • The way cores, processes, and threads work exactly?

    - by unknownthreat
    I need a bit of an advice for understanding how this whole procedure work exactly. If I am incorrect in any part described below, please correct me. In a single core CPU, it runs each process in the OS, jumping around from one process to another to utilize the best of itself. A process can also have many threads, in which the CPU core runs through these threads when it is running on the respective process. Now, on a multiple core CPU, Do the cores run in every process together, or can the cores run separately in different processes at one particular point of time? For instance, you have program A running two threads, can a duo core CPU run both threads of this program? I think the answer should be yes if we are using something like OpenMP. But while the cores are running in this OpenMP-embedded process, can one of the core simply switch to other process? For programs that are created for single core, when running at 100%, why the CPU utilization of each core are distributed? (ex. A duo core CPU of 80% and 20%. The utilization percentage of all cores always add up to 100% for this case.) Do the cores try help each other run each thread of each process in some ways? Frankly, I'm not sure how this works exactly. Any advice is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Issue with GCD and too many threads

    - by dariaa
    I have an image loader class which provided with NSURL loads and image from the web and executes completion block. Code is actually quite simple - (void)downloadImageWithURL:(NSString *)URLString completion:(BELoadImageCompletionBlock)completion { dispatch_async(_queue, ^{ // dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), ^{ UIImage *image = nil; NSURL *URL = [NSURL URLWithString:URLString]; if (URL) { image = [UIImage imageWithData:[NSData dataWithContentsOfURL:URL]]; } dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ completion(image, URLString); }); }); } When I replace dispatch_async(_queue, ^{ with commented out dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), ^{ Images are loading much faster, wich is quite logical (before that images would be loaded one at a time, now a bunch of them are loading simultaneously). My issue is that I have perhaps 50 images and I call downloadImageWithURL:completion: method for all of them and when I use global queue instead of _queue my app eventually crashes and I see there are 85+ threads. Can the problem be that my calling dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0) 50 times in a row makes GCD create too many threads? I thought that gcd handles all the treading and makes sure the number of threads is not huge, but if it's not the case is there any way I can influence number of threads?

    Read the article

  • How do I configure the number of worker threads used by SqlServer 2005 Agent

    - by Decker
    How can I increase the limit of worker threads from the default 10 for SQL Server 2005 SqlAgent? I have 9 jobs that run almost continuously and that leaves only one available thread for the rest of the scheduled jobs. Oftentimes, when no thread is available, I will see the jobs in "Waiting for worker thread" state. I'd like to increase the number to about 12 (which should do the trick for me). Any idea where this is set?

    Read the article

  • How can I stop my application?

    - by Roman
    I have the main thread from which I start a window using invokeLater. I run my application from command line. So, when application is running I see the window and my command line is "blocked" by the application. I can stop the application either by closing the window (as a result the command line is unblocked) or by typing Ctrl-C in the command line (as a result the window disappear). I wanted to be able to stop the application by clicking on a button in the window of the application. I used setVisible(false) for that. But in this way I can achieve the goal only partially. My window really disappear but the command line is still blocked. So, the software is still running. Well, I assume it's because some other threads are still running. But how can I easily close all these threads (like I do by closing the window of the application manually).

    Read the article

  • Wake up thread blocked on accept() call

    - by selbie
    Sockets on Linux question I have a worker thread that is blocked on an accept() call. It simply waits for an incoming network connection, handles it, and then returns to listening for the next connection. When it is time for the program to exit, how do I signal this network worker thread (from the main thread) to return from the accept() call while still being able to gracefully exit its loop and handle it's cleanup code. Some things I tried: 1. pthread_kill to send a signal. Feels kludgy to do this, plus it doesn't reliably allow the thread to do it's shutdown logic. Also makes the program terminate as well. I'd like to avoid signals if at all possible. pthread_cancel. Same as above. It's a harsh kill on the thread. That, and the thread may be doing something else. Closing the listen socket from the main thread in order to make accept() abort. This doesn't reliably work. Some constraints: If the solution involves making the listen socket non-blocking, that is fine. But I don't want to accept a solution that involves the thread waking up via a select call every few seconds to check the exit condition. The thread condition to exit may not be tied to the process exiting. Essentially, the logic I am going for looks like this. void* WorkerThread(void* args) { DoSomeImportantInitialization(); // initialize listen socket and some thread specific stuff while (HasExitConditionBeenSet()==false) { listensize = sizeof(listenaddr); int sock = accept(listensocket, &listenaddr, &listensize); // check if exit condition has been set using thread safe semantics if (HasExitConditionBeenSet()) { break; } if (sock < 0) { printf("accept returned %d (errno==%d)\n", sock, errno); } else { HandleNewNetworkCondition(sock, &listenaddr); } } DoSomeImportantCleanup(); // close listen socket, close connections, cleanup etc.. return NULL; } void SignalHandler(int sig) { printf("Caught CTRL-C\n"); } void NotifyWorkerThreadToExit(pthread_t thread_handle) { // signal thread to exit } int main() { void* ptr_ret= NULL; pthread_t workerthread_handle = 0; pthread_create(&workerthread, NULL, WorkerThread, NULL); signal(SIGINT, SignalHandler); sleep((unsigned int)-1); // sleep until the user hits ctrl-c printf("Returned from sleep call...\n"); SetThreadExitCondition(); // sets global variable with barrier that worker thread checks on // this is the function I'm stalled on writing NotifyWorkerThreadToExit(workerthread_handle); // wait for thread to exit cleanly pthread_join(workerthread_handle, &ptr_ret); DoProcessCleanupStuff(); }

    Read the article

  • How to stop worker threads in a multithreaded Windows service on service stop

    - by RobW
    I have a Windows service that uses the producer/consumer queue model with multiple worker threads processing tasks off a queue. These tasks can be very long running, in the order of many minutes if not hours, and do not involve loops. My question is about the best way to handle the service stop to gracefully end processing on these worker threads. I have read in another SO question that using thread.Abort() is a sign of bad design, but it seems that the service OnStop() method is only given a limited amount of time to finish before the service is terminated. I can do sufficient clean-up in the catch for ThreadAbortException (there is no danger of inconsistent state) so calling thread.Abort() on the worker threads seems OK to me. Is it? What are the alternatives?

    Read the article

  • POSIX threads and signals

    - by Donal Fellows
    I've been trying to understand the intricacies of how POSIX threads and POSIX signals interact. In particular, I'm interested in: What's the best way to control which thread a signal is delivered to (assuming it isn't fatal in the first place)? What is the best way to tell another thread (that might actually be busy) that the signal has arrived? (I already know that it's a bad idea to be using pthread condition variables from a signal handler.) For reference about why I want this, I'm researching how to convert the TclX package to support threads, or to split it up and at least make some useful parts support threads. Signals are one of those parts that is of particular interest.

    Read the article

  • Do Scala and Erlang use green threads?

    - by CHAPa
    I've been reading a lot about how Scala and Erlang does lightweight threads and their concurrency model (actors). However, I have my doubts. Do Scala and Erlang use an approach similar to the old thread model used by Java (green threads) ? For example, suppose that there is a machine with 2 cores, so the Scala/Erlang environment will fork one thread per processor? The other threads will be scheduled by user-space (Scala VM / Erlang VM ) environment. Is this correct? Under the hood, how does this really work?

    Read the article

  • DDMS Not Showing Threads From Device

    - by polyclef
    I'd like to check for memory leaks in my Android app using the DDMS feature in Eclipse. When I launch an emulated device, the threads display properly for the emulated device, starting with 8600 and up. However, when I connect my Droid to the PC, the device shows up just fine in DDMS. The logcat is generated correctly, and I can view the file structure. However, threads do not display. I get "no client selected" in the Threads pane, and there is no drop-down icon next to the device listing. Do I need to change some particular setting in Eclipse? Is this maybe a driver issue?

    Read the article

  • MySQL: Transactions across multiple threads

    - by Zombies
    Preliminary: I have an application which maintains a thread pool of about 100 threads. Each thread can last about 1-30 seconds before a new task replaces it. When a thread end, that thread almost always will result in inserting 1-3 records into a table, this table is used by all of the threads. Right now, no transactional support exists, but I am trying to add that now. So... Goal I want to implement a transaction for this. The rules for whether or not this transaction commits or rollback reside in the main thread. Basically there is a simple function that will return a boolean. Can I implement a transaction across multiple connections? If not, can multiple threads share the same connection? (Note: there are a LOT of inserts going on here, and that is a requirement).

    Read the article

  • How to synchronize threads in python?

    - by Eric
    I have two threads in python (2.7). I start them at the beginning of my program. While they execute, my program reaches the end and exits, killing both of my threads before waiting for resolution. I'm trying to figure out how to wait for both threads to finish before exiting. def connect_cam(ip, execute_lock): try: conn = TelnetConnection.TelnetClient(ip) execute_lock.acquire() ExecuteUpdate(conn, ip) execute_lock.release() except ValueError: pass execute_lock = thread.allocate_lock() thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( headset_ip, execute_lock ) ) thread.start_new_thread(connect_cam, ( handcam_ip, execute_lock ) ) In .NET I would use something like WaitAll() but I haven't found the equivalent in python. In my scenario, TelnetClient is a long operation which may result in a failure after a timeout.

    Read the article

  • POSIX Threads and signal masks

    - by Max
    Is there a way to change the signal mask of a thread from another thread? I am supposed to write a multithreaded C application that doesn't use mutex, semaphores and condition variables, only signals. So it would look like something like this: The main Thread sends SIGUSR1 to its process and and one of the 2 threads (not including the main thread), will respond to the signal and block SIGUSR1 from the sigmask and sleep. Then the main thread sends SIGUSR1 again, the other thread will respond, block SIGUSR1 from its sigmask, unblock SIGUSR1 from the other threads sigmask, so it will respond to SIGUSR1 again. So essentially whenever the main thread sends SIGUSR1 the two other threads swap between each other. Can somebody help?

    Read the article

  • "too many threads error" in blackberry OS-4.5

    - by SWATI
    hi in my application i have 20 icons(bitmap fields) on the home screen When i click on any icon an HTTP request is made in a separate thread. I have used invoke later method wherever necessary to take care of multi-threading problems. But still the number of threads goes beyond 16 and an error pops up indicating too many threads error and applications needs to be restarted!! can anybody tell me how to destroy these threads when they are no longer in use. I don't understand why they don't destroy on their own as usually they do.

    Read the article

  • iphone app photo upload to server from app threads

    - by user290380
    I have an app that needs to upload a least 5 photos to a server using API call available with the server. For that I am planning to use threads which will take care of photo upload and the main process can go on with the navigation of views etc. What I cant decide is whether it is OK to spawn five separate threads in iphone or use a single thread that will do the upload. In the later cases obviously it will become quite slow. Basically an HTTP POST request will be made to the server with the NSMutableURLRequest object using NSCOnnection. More threads mean more complexity and sync issues, but I can try to write code as neat as possible if it means better performance than a single thread which is simple but is a real stopper if performance is considered. Anybody with any experience in this kinda app. ??

    Read the article

  • too many threads due to synch communication

    - by MasoudIzzy
    I'm using threads and xmlrpclib in python at the same time. Periodically, I create a bunch of thread to complete a service on a remote server via xmlrpclib. The problem is that, there are times that the remote server doesn't answer. This causes the thread to wait forever for a response which it never gets. Over time, number of threads in this state increases and will reach the maximum number of allowed threads on the system (I'm using fedora). I tried to use socket.setdefaulttimeout(10); but the exception that is created by that will cause the server to defunct. I used it at server side but it seems that it doesn't work :/ Any idea how can I handle this issue?

    Read the article

  • Simple prime number program - Weird issue with threads C#

    - by Para
    Hi! This is my code: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Threading; namespace FirePrime { class Program { static bool[] ThreadsFinished; static bool[] nums; static bool AllThreadsFinished() { bool allThreadsFinished = false; foreach (var threadFinished in ThreadsFinished) { allThreadsFinished &= threadFinished; } return allThreadsFinished; } static bool isPrime(int n) { if (n < 2) { return false; } if (n == 2) { return true; } if (n % 2 == 0) { return false; } int d = 3; while (d * d <= n) { if (n % d == 0) { return false; } d += 2; } return true; } static void MarkPrimes(int startNumber,int stopNumber,int ThreadNr) { for (int j = startNumber; j < stopNumber; j++) nums[j] = isPrime(j); lock (typeof(Program)) { ThreadsFinished[ThreadNr] = true; } } static void Main(string[] args) { int nrNums = 100; int nrThreads = 10; //var threadStartNums = new List<int>(); ThreadsFinished = new bool[nrThreads]; nums = new bool[nrNums]; //var nums = new List<bool>(); nums[0] = false; nums[1] = false; for(int i=2;i<nrNums;i++) nums[i] = true; int interval = (int)(nrNums / nrThreads); //threadStartNums.Add(2); //int aux = firstStartNum; //int i = 2; //while (aux < interval) //{ // aux = interval*i; // i=i+1; // threadStartNums.Add(aux); //} int startNum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < nrThreads; i++) { var _thread = new System.Threading.Thread(() => MarkPrimes(startNum, Math.Min(startNum + interval, nrNums), i)); startNum = startNum + interval; //set the thread to run in the background _thread.IsBackground = true; //start our thread _thread.Start(); } while (!AllThreadsFinished()) { Thread.Sleep(1); } for (int i = 0; i < nrNums; i++) if(nums[i]) Console.WriteLine(i); } } } This should be a pretty simple program that is supposed to find and output the first nrNums prime numbers using nrThreads threads working in parallel. So, I just split nrNums into nrThreads equal chunks (well, the last one won't be equal; if nrThreads doesn't divide by nrNums, it will also contain the remainder, of course). I start nrThreads threads. They all test each number in their respective chunk and see if it is prime or not; they mark everything out in a bool array that keeps a tab on all the primes. The threads all turn a specific element in another boolean array ThreadsFinished to true when they finish. Now the weird part begins: The threads never all end. If I debug, I find that ThreadNr is not what I assign to it in the loop but another value. I guess this is normal since the threads execute afterwards and the counter (the variable i) is already increased by then but I cannot understand how to make the code be right. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance. P.S.: I know the algorithm is not very efficient; I am aiming at a solution using the sieve of Eratosthenes also with x given threads. But for now I can't even get this one to work and I haven't found any examples of any implementations of that algorithm anywhere in a language that I can understand.

    Read the article

  • Keeping track of threads when creating them recursively

    - by 66replica
    I'm currently working on some code for my Programming Languages course. I can't post the code but I'm permitted to talk about some high level concepts that I'm struggling with and receive input on them. Basically the code is a recursive DFS on a undirected graph that I'm supposed to convert to a concurrent program. My professor already specified that I should create my threads in the recursive DFS method and then join them in another method. Basically, I'm having trouble thinking of how I should keep track of the threads I'm creating so I can join all of them in the other method. I'm thinking an array of Threads but I'm unsure how to add each new thread to the array or even if that's the right direction.

    Read the article

  • How to increase thread-pool threads on IIS 7.0

    - by Xaqron
    Environment: Windows Server 2008 Enterprise, IIS 7.0, ASP.NET 2.0 (CLR), .NET 4.0 I have an ASP.NET application with no page and no session(HttpHandler). It a streaming server. I use two threads for processing each request so if there are 100 connected clients, then 200 threads are used. This is a dedicated server and there's no more application on the server. The problem is after 200 clients are connected (under stress testing) application refuses new clients, but if I increase the worker threads of application pool (create a web garden) then I can have 200 new happy clients per w3wp process. I feel .NET thread pool limit reaches at that point and need to increase it. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to call 3 threads sequentially many times?

    - by Hello
    How to call 3 threads sequentially many times? For example: In iteration 1, execution order should be "Thread0-thread1-thread2" then in iteration 2 should be same i.e "Thread0 - thread1-thread2" and so on. The sample code is just executing 3 threads only once. It is not going to 2nd iteration. Thread0 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc0, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); Thread1 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc1, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); Thread2 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc2, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); for(i=0;i<iterations;i++) //Iterations in calling threads { ResumeThread(Thread0); WaitForSingleObject(Thread0, INFINITE); ResumeThread(Thread1); WaitForSingleObject(Thread1, INFINITE); ResumeThread(Thread2); WaitForSingleObject(Thread2, INFINITE); } // Close thread and semaphore handles

    Read the article

  • Windows Form hangs when running threads

    - by Benjamin Ortuzar
    JI have written a .NET C# Windows Form app in Visual Studio 2008 that uses a Semaphore to run multiple jobs as threads when the Start button is pressed. It’s experiencing an issue where the Form goes into a comma after being run for 40 minutes or more. The log files indicate that the current jobs complete, it picks a new job from the list, and there it hangs. I have noticed that the Windows Form becomes unresponsive when this happens. The form is running in its own thread. This is a sample of the code I am using: protected void ProcessJobsWithStatus (Status status) { int maxJobThreads = Convert.ToInt32(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["MaxJobThreads"]); Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(maxJobThreads, maxJobThreads); // Available=3; Capacity=3 int threadTimeOut = Convert.ToInt32(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ThreadSemaphoreWait"]);//in Seconds //gets a list of jobs from a DB Query. List<Job> jobList = jobQueue.GetJobsWithStatus(status); //we need to create a list of threads to check if they all have stopped. List<Thread> threadList = new List<Thread>(); if (jobList.Count > 0) { foreach (Job job in jobList) { logger.DebugFormat("Waiting green light for JobId: [{0}]", job.JobId.ToString()); if (!semaphore.WaitOne(threadTimeOut * 1000)) { logger.ErrorFormat("Semaphore Timeout. A thread did NOT complete in time[{0} seconds]. JobId: [{1}] will start", threadTimeOut, job.JobId.ToString()); } logger.DebugFormat("Acquired green light for JobId: [{0}]", job.JobId.ToString()); // Only N threads can get here at once job.semaphore = semaphore; ThreadStart threadStart = new ThreadStart(job.Process); Thread thread = new Thread(threadStart); thread.Name = job.JobId.ToString(); threadList.Add(thread); thread.Start(); } logger.Info("Waiting for all threads to complete"); //check that all threads have completed. foreach (Thread thread in threadList) { logger.DebugFormat("About to join thread(jobId): {0}", thread.Name); if (!thread.Join(threadTimeOut * 1000)) { logger.ErrorFormat("Thread did NOT complete in time[{0} seconds]. JobId: [{1}]", threadTimeOut, thread.Name); } else { logger.DebugFormat("Thread did complete in time. JobId: [{0}]", thread.Name); } } } logger.InfoFormat("Finished Processing Jobs in Queue with status [{0}]...", status); } //form methods private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { buttonStop.Enabled = true; buttonStart.Enabled = false; ThreadStart threadStart = new ThreadStart(DoWork); workerThread = new Thread(threadStart); serviceStarted = true; workerThread.Start(); } private void DoWork() { EmailAlert emailAlert = new EmailAlert (); // start an endless loop; loop will abort only when "serviceStarted" flag = false while (serviceStarted) { emailAlert.ProcessJobsWithStatus(0); // yield if (serviceStarted) { Thread.Sleep(new TimeSpan(0, 0, 1)); } } // time to end the thread Thread.CurrentThread.Abort(); } //job.process() public void Process() { try { //sets the status, DateTimeStarted, and the processId this.UpdateStatus(Status.InProgress); //do something logger.Debug("Updating Status to [Completed]"); //hits, status,DateFinished this.UpdateStatus(Status.Completed); } catch (Exception e) { logger.Error("Exception: " + e.Message); this.UpdateStatus(Status.Error); } finally { logger.Debug("Relasing semaphore"); semaphore.Release(); } I have tried to log what I can into a file to detect where the problem is happening, but so far I haven't been able to identify where this happens. Losing control of the Windows Form makes me think that this has nothing to do with processing the jobs. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Virtualized CPU cores vs. threads

    - by nedm
    We've got a KVM host system on Ubuntu 9.10 with a newer Quad-core Xeon CPU with hyperthreading. As detailed on Intel's product page, the processor has 4 cores but 8 threads. /proc/cpuinfo and htop both list 8 processors, though each one states 4 cores in cpuinfo. KVM/QEMU also reports 8 VCPUs available to assign to guests. My question is when I'm allocating VCPUs to VM guests, should I allocate per-core or per-thread? Since KVM/QEMU reports the server has 8 VCPUs to allocate, should I go ahead and set a guest to use 4 CPUs where I previously would have set it to use 2 (assuming 4 total VCPUs available)? I'd like to get the most possible out of the host hardware without over-allocating.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET, URL Rewriting and threads on Linux?

    - by acidzombie24
    Right now converting my normal sql(ite) syntax into compatible MS Server syntax is driving me mad. My code seems to be mono compatible judging by MoMA. However in global.asax i start several threads in Application_Start to use as a service and excessive url rewrites in Application_BeginRequest (everything is rewriting into default.aspx which calls C# code/class baded on the url). The urls do not have extensions or my have false extentions ie mysite.com/username/page/title.lol - id I need it all to go to BeginRequest. I also need files to be downloadable. Usually the path will be rewritten as from /file/user/filename to /file/u/s/user/file. Would this be supported on linux+mono+a good webserver?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >