Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 15/344 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • how to make a thread of never stop, and write something to database every 10 second..

    - by zjm1126
    i using gae and django this is my code: class LogText(db.Model): content = db.StringProperty(multiline=True) class MyThread(threading.Thread): def __init__(self,threadname): threading.Thread.__init__(self, name=threadname) def run(self,request): log=LogText() log.content=request.POST.get('content',None) log.put() def Log(request): thr = MyThread('haha') thr.run(request) return HttpResponse('')

    Read the article

  • Do you know of some performances test of the different ways to get thread local storage in C++?

    - by Vicente Botet Escriba
    I'm doing a library that makes extensive use of a thread local variable. Can you point to some benchmarks that test the performances of the different ways to get thread local variables in C++: C++0x thread_local variables compiler extension (Gcc __thread, ...) boost::threads_specific_ptr pthread Windows ... Does C++0x thread_local performs much better on the compilers providing it?

    Read the article

  • Pass string between two threads in java

    - by geeta
    I have to search a string in a file and write the matched lines to another file. I have a thread to read a file and a thread to write a file. I want to send the stringBuffer from read thread to write thread. Please help me to pass this. I amm getting null value passed. write thread: class OutputThread extends Thread{ /****************** Writes the line with search string to the output file *************/ Thread runner1,runner; File Out_File; public OutputThread() { } public OutputThread(Thread runner,File Out_File) { runner1 = new Thread(this,"writeThread"); // (1) Create a new thread. this.Out_File=Out_File; this.runner=runner; runner1.start(); // (2) Start the thread. } public void run() { try{ BufferedWriter bufferedWriter=new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(Out_File,true)); System.out.println("inside write"); synchronized(runner){ System.out.println("inside wait"); runner.wait(); } System.out.println("outside wait"); // bufferedWriter.write(line.toString()); Buffer Buf = new Buffer(); bufferedWriter.write(Buf.buffers); System.out.println(Buf.buffers); bufferedWriter.flush(); } catch(Exception e){ System.out.println(e); e.printStackTrace(); } } } Read Thraed: class FileThread extends Thread{ Thread runner; File dir; String search_string,stats; File Out_File,final_output; StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(); public FileThread() { } public FileThread(CountDownLatch latch,String threadName,File dir,String search_string,File Out_File,File final_output,String stats) { runner = new Thread(this, threadName); // (1) Create a new thread. this.dir=dir; this.search_string=search_string; this.Out_File=Out_File; this.stats=stats; this.final_output=final_output; this.latch=latch; runner.start(); // (2) Start the thread. } public void run() { try{ Enumeration entries; ZipFile zipFile; String source_file_name = dir.toString(); File Source_file = dir; String extension; OutputThread out = new OutputThread(runner,Out_File); int dotPos = source_file_name.lastIndexOf("."); extension = source_file_name.substring(dotPos+1); if(extension.equals("zip")) { zipFile = new ZipFile(source_file_name); entries = zipFile.entries(); while(entries.hasMoreElements()) { ZipEntry entry = (ZipEntry)entries.nextElement(); if(entry.isDirectory()) { (new File(entry.getName())).mkdir(); continue; } searchString(runner,entry.getName(),new BufferedInputStream(zipFile.getInputStream(entry)),Out_File,final_output,search_string,stats); } zipFile.close(); } else { searchString(runner,Source_file.toString(),new BufferedInputStream(new FileInputStream(Source_file)),Out_File,final_output,search_string,stats); } } catch(Exception e){ System.out.println(e); e.printStackTrace(); } } /********* Reads the Input Files and Searches for the String ******************************/ public void searchString(Thread runner,String Source_File,BufferedInputStream in,File output_file,File final_output,String search,String stats) { int count = 0; int countw = 0; int countl=0; String s; String[] str; String newLine = System.getProperty("line.separator"); try { BufferedReader br2 = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(in)); //OutputFile outfile = new OutputFile(); BufferedWriter bufferedWriter = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(output_file,true)); Buffer Buf = new Buffer(); //StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(); StringBuffer sb1 = new StringBuffer(); while((s = br2.readLine()) != null ) { str = s.split(search); count = str.length-1; countw += count; if(s.contains(search)){ countl++; sb.append(s); sb.append(newLine); } if(countl%100==0) { System.out.println("inside count"); Buf.setBuffers(sb.toString()); sb.delete(0,sb.length()); System.out.println("outside notify"); synchronized(runner) { runner.notify(); } //outfile.WriteFile(sb,bufferedWriter); //sb.delete(0,sb.length()); } } } synchronized(runner) { runner.notify(); } br2.close(); in.close(); if(countw == 0) { System.out.println("Input File : "+Source_File ); System.out.println("Word not found"); System.exit(0); } else { System.out.println("Input File : "+Source_File ); System.out.println("Matched word count : "+countw ); System.out.println("Lines with Search String : "+countl); System.out.println("Output File : "+output_file.toString()); System.out.println(); } } catch(Exception e){ System.out.println(e); e.printStackTrace(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Android Design - Service vs Thread for Networking

    - by Nevyn
    I am writing an Android app, finally (yay me) and for this app I need persistant, but user closeable, network sockets (yes, more than one). I decided to try my hand at writing my own version of an IRC Client. My design issue however, is I'm not sure how to run the Socket connectivity itself. If I put the sockets at the Activity level, they keeps getting closed shortly after the Activity becomes non-visible (also a problem that needs solving...but I think i figured that one out)...but if I run a "connectivity service", I need to find out if I can have multiple instances of it running (the service, that is...one per server/socket). Either that or a I need a way to Thread the sockets themselves and have multiple threads running that I can still communicate with directly (ID system of some sort). Thus the question: Is it a 'better', or at least more "proper" design pattern, to put the Socket and networking in a service, and have the Activities consume said service...or should I tie the sockets directly to some Threaded Process owned by the UI Activity and not bother with the service implementation at all? I do know better than to put the networking directly on the UI thread, but that's as far as I've managed to get.

    Read the article

  • Can Clojure's thread-based agents handle c10k performance?

    - by elliot42
    I'm writing a c10k-style service and am trying to evaluate Clojure's performance. Can Clojure agents handle this scale of concurrency with its thread-based agents? Other high performance systems seem to be moving towards async-IO/events/greenlets, albeit at a seemingly higher complexity cost. Suppose there are 10,000 clients connected, sending messages that should be appended to 1,000 local files--the Clojure service is trying to write to as many files in parallel as it can, while not letting any two separate requests mangle the same single file by writing at the same time. Clojure agents are extremely elegant conceptually--they would allow separate files to be written independently and asynchronously, while serializing (in the database sense) multiple requests to write to the same file. My understanding is that agents work by starting a thread for each operation (assume we are IO-bound and using send-off)--so in this case is it correct that it would start 1,000+ threads? Can current-day systems handle this number of threads efficiently? Most of them should be IO-bound and sleeping most of the time, but I presume there would still be a context-switching penalty that is theoretically higher than async-IO/event-based systems (e.g. Erlang, Go, node.js). If the Clojure solution can handle the performance, it seems like the most elegant thing to code. However if it can't handle the performance then something like Erlang or Go's lightweight processes might be preferable, since they are designed to have tens of thousands of them spawned at once, and are only moderately more complex to implement. Has anyone approached this problem in Clojure or compared to these other platforms? (Thanks for your thoughts!)

    Read the article

  • How to find out where a thread lock happend?

    - by SchlaWiener
    One of our company's Windows Forms application had a strange problem for several month. The app worked very reliable for most of our customers but on some PC's (mostly with a wireless lan connection) the app sometimes just didn't respond anymore. (You click on the UI and windows ask you to wait or kill the app). I wasn't able to track down the problem for a long time but now I figured out what happend. The app had this line of code // don't blame me for this. Wasn't my code :D Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false and used some background threads to modify the controls. No I found a way to reproduce the application stopping responding bug on my dev machine and tracked it down to a line where I actually used Invoke() to run a task in the main thread. Me.Invoke(MyDelegate, arg1, arg2) Obviously there was a thread lock somewhere. After removing the Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false statement and refactoring the whole programm to use Invoke() if modifying a control from a background thread, the problem is (hopefully) gone. However, I am wondering if there is a way to find such bugs without debugging every line of code (Even if I break into debugger after the app stops responding I can't tell what happend last, because the IDE didn't jump to the Invoke() statement) In other words: If my apps hangs how can I figure out which line of code has been executed last? Maybe even on the customers PC. I know VS2010 offers some backwards debugging feature, maybe that would be a solution, but currently I am using VS2008.

    Read the article

  • Are C++ exceptions sufficient to implement thread-local storage?

    - by Potatoswatter
    I was commenting on an answer that thread-local storage is nice and recalled another informative discussion about exceptions where I supposed The only special thing about the execution environment within the throw block is that the exception object is referenced by rethrow. Putting two and two together, wouldn't executing an entire thread inside a function-catch-block of its main function imbue it with thread-local storage? It seems to work fine: #include <iostream> #include <pthread.h> using namespace std; struct thlocal { string name; thlocal( string const &n ) : name(n) {} }; thlocal &get_thread() { try { throw; } catch( thlocal &local ) { return local; } } void print_thread() { cerr << get_thread().name << endl; } void *kid( void *local_v ) try { thlocal &local = * static_cast< thlocal * >( local_v ); throw local; } catch( thlocal & ) { print_thread(); return NULL; } int main() try { thlocal local( "main" ); throw local; } catch( thlocal & ) { print_thread(); pthread_t th; thlocal kid_local( "kid" ); pthread_create( &th, NULL, &kid, &kid_local ); pthread_join( th, NULL ); print_thread(); return 0; } Is this novel or well-characterized? Was my initial premise correct? What kind of overhead does get_thread incur in, say, GCC and VC++? It would require throwing only exceptions derived from struct thlocal, but altogether this doesn't feel like an unproductive insomnia-ridden Sunday morning…

    Read the article

  • mysql thread count

    - by Ryan M.
    We have a web application that uses apache and mysql. Generally (according to Munin) our MySQL thread count sits between 2 and 4 at all times. The other day, our server almost came to a halt. HTTP requests were slow or wouldn't go through at all, SSH would work, but would take 30+ seconds to register keystrokes, etc.. So we pull up Munin and the only thing that's out of normal boundaries is the Mysql thread count. CPU usage was under 1%, load was under 1.0, plenty of available RAM. As mentioned before, the thread count floats around 2 to 4. At the time of our slow downs it had spiked to 14. So I start poking around the Internet and I see that in most cases, you'll start to see a higher thread count when you start running into slow queries. If I understand it correctly, the request comes in that takes a while to process, in the mean time other requests are coming in, so a new thread will be created to work on the request (yes?). But at the time of the slow down, we had 0 slow queries. My question is: What else can cause mysql to create additional threads. And would this sudden spike in threads possibly cause the server to slow down? To fix the issue, we restarted apache and everything went back to it's beautiful, normal self. Considering the the Server Vitals (CPU, RAM, Network, etc) were all ideal, and the thread count was the only thing out of place, this seems like the most logical thing to pursue as the possible cause. If it matters, we're on Mysql 5.1.40. Server is FreeBSD 7.2 and the server in question is inside a jail.

    Read the article

  • java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: main Exception in thread "main" .

    - by russell
    I Cant understand why this messege come--------- java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: main Exception in thread "main" . I know it expecting main() method but as i m building an applet which does not contain main method rather contain init() method.So what will i do??My code is s follow --- import java.applet.*; import java.awt.*; public class Ballbewegung1 extends Applet implements Runnable { // Initialisierung der Variablen int x_pos = 10; // x - Position des Balles int y_pos = 100; // y - Position des Balles int radius = 20; // Radius des Balles public void init() { setBackground (Color.blue); } public void start () { // Schaffen eines neuen Threads, in dem das Spiel l?uft Thread th = new Thread (this); // Starten des Threads th.start (); } public void stop() { } public void destroy() { } public void run () { // Erniedrigen der ThreadPriority um zeichnen zu erleichtern Thread.currentThread().setPriority(Thread.MIN_PRIORITY); // Solange true ist l?uft der Thread weiter while (true) { // Ver?ndern der x- Koordinate x_pos ++; // Neuzeichnen des Applets repaint(); try { // Stoppen des Threads f?r in Klammern angegebene Millisekunden Thread.sleep (20); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { // do nothing } // Zur?cksetzen der ThreadPriority auf Maximalwert Thread.currentThread().setPriority(Thread.MAX_PRIORITY); } } public void paint (Graphics g) { g.setColor (Color.red); g.fillOval (x_pos - radius, y_pos - radius, 2 * radius, 2 * radius); } } And I dont know how to use code tag.so plz someone ans.

    Read the article

  • Second Thread Holding Up Entire Program in C# Windows Form Application

    - by Brandon
    In my windows form application, I'm trying to test the user's ability to access a remote machine's shared folder. The way I'm doing this (and I'm sure that there are better ways...but I don't know of them) is to check for the existence of a specific directory on the remote machine (I'm doing this because of firewall/other security restrictions that I'm confronted with in my organization). If the user has rights to access the shared folder, then it returns in no time at all, but if they don't, it hangs forever. To solve this, I threw the check into another thread and wait only 1000 milliseconds before determining that the share can't be hit by the user. However, when I do this, it still hangs as if it was never run in the same thread. What is making it hang and how do I fix it? I would think that the fact that it is in a separate thread would allow me to just let the thread finish on it's own in the background. Here is my code: bool canHitInstallPath = false; Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(() => { canHitInstallPath = Directory.Exists(compInfo.InstallPath); })); thread.Start(); thread.Join(1000); if (canHitInstallPath == false) { throw new Exception("Cannot hit folder: " + compInfo.InstallPath); }

    Read the article

  • make a thread which recieves values from other threads

    - by farteaga88
    This program in Java creates a list of 15 numbers and creates 3 threads to search for the maximum in a given interval. I want to create another thread that takes those 3 numbers and get the maximum. but i don't know how to get those values in the other thread. public class apple implements Runnable{ String name; int time, number, first, last, maximum; int[] array = {12, 32, 54 ,64, 656, 756, 765 ,43, 34, 54,5 ,45 ,6 , 5, 65}; public apple(String s, int f, int l){ name = s; first = f; last = l; maximum = array[0]; } public void run(){ try{ for(int i = first; i < last; i++ ) { if(maximum < array[i]) { maximum = array[i]; } } System.out.println("Thread"+ name + "maximum = " + maximum); }catch(Exception e){} } public static void main(String[] args){ Thread t1 = new Thread(new apple("1 ", 0, 5)); Thread t2 = new Thread(new apple("2 ", 5, 10 )); Thread t3 = new Thread(new apple("3 ", 10, 15)); try{ t1.start(); t2.start(); t3.start(); }catch(Exception e){} } }

    Read the article

  • Various way to stop a thread - which is the correct way

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I had came across different suggestion of stopping a thread. May I know, which is the correct way? Or it depends? Using Thread Variable http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using boolean flag private volatile boolean flag; public void stop() { flag = false; } public void run() { while (flag) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using Thread Variable together with interrupt private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker.interrupt(); blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (!thisThread.isInterrupted() && blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } }

    Read the article

  • 500.19 error NetBios command limit thread on forums.iis.net

    - by The Official Microsoft IIS Site
    Here is a great thread on how a person reported fixing a problem 500.19 error NetBios command limit and using a UNC based content architecture. http://forums.iis.net/p/1165964/1937935.aspx http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/4/f/74fe970d-4a7d-4034-9f5d-02572567e7f7/24_CHAPTER_11_Troubleshooting_IIS_6.0.doc http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813776 Check out the UNC tag regarding others that have great information. http://weblogs.asp.net/steveschofield/archive/tags/UNC/default.aspx Steve Schofield...(read more)

    Read the article

  • 500.19 error NetBios command limit thread on forums.iis.net

    - by steve schofield
    Here is a great thread on how a person reported fixing a problem 500.19 error NetBios command limit and using a UNC based content architecture. http://forums.iis.net/p/1165964/1937935.aspx http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/4/f/74fe970d-4a7d-4034-9f5d-02572567e7f7/24_CHAPTER_11_Troubleshooting_IIS_6.0.doc http://support.microsoft.com/kb/813776 Check out the UNC tag regarding others that have great information. http://weblogs.asp.net/steveschofield/archive/tags/UNC/default.aspx Steve SchofieldMicrosoft MVP - IIS

    Read the article

  • Per-Thread Visibility PHPBB

    - by Andrei Krotkov
    I'm trying to implement a registration system for a board I'm running, and I want a forum where every thread is invisible to everyone but the person who started it and the moderator staff. I want the staff to be able to post and for the person registering to respond, but I haven't been able to find a per-post visibility solution. Are there any mods that perform this task, or is there a hidden setting in the software somewhere?

    Read the article

  • Unintentional run-in with C# thread concurrency

    - by geekrutherford
    For the first time today we began conducting load testing on a ASP.NET application already in production. Obviously you would normally want to load test prior to releasing to a production environment, but that isn't the point here.   We ran a test which simulated 5 users hitting the application doing the same actions simultaneously. The first few pages visited seemed fine and then things just hung for a while before the test failed. While the test was running I was viewing the performance counters on the server noting that the CPU was consistently pegged at 100% until the testing tool gave up.   Fortunately the application logs all exceptions including those unhandled to the database (thanks to log4net). I checked the log and low and behold the error was:   System.ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added. (The rest of the stack trace intentionally omitted)   Since the code was running with debug on the line number where the exception occured was also provided. I began inspecting the code and almost immediately it hit me, the section of code responsible for the exception is trying to initialize a static class. My next question was how is this code being hit multiple times when I have a rudimentary check already in place to prevent this kind of thing (i.e. a check on a public variable of the static class before entering the initializing routine). The answer...the check fails because the value is not set before other threads have already made it through.   Not being one who consistently works with threading I wasn't quite sure how to handle this problem. Fortunately a co-worker recalled having to lock a section of code in the past but couldn't recall exactly how. After a quick search on Google the solution is as follows:   Object objLock = new Object(); lock(objLock) { //logic requiring lock }   The lock statement takes an object and tells the .NET runtime that the current thread has exclusive access while the code within brackets is executing. Once the code completes, the lock is released for another thread to utilize.   In my case, I only need to execute the inner code once to initialize my static class. So within the brackets I have a check on a public variable to prevent it from being initialized again.

    Read the article

  • Use Thread-local Storage to Reduce Synchronization

    Synchronization is often an expensive operation that can limit the performance of a multithreaded program. Using thread-local data structures instead of data structures shared by the threads can reduce synchronization in certain cases, allowing a program to run faster.

    Read the article

  • [Java] - Problem having my main thread sleeping

    - by Chris
    I'm in a Java class and our assignment is to let us explore threads in Java. So far so good except for this one this one problem. And I believe that could be because of my lack of understanding how Java threads work at the moment. I have the main thread of execution which spawns new threads. In the main thread of execution in main() I am calling Thread.sleep(). When I do I get an Unhandled exception type InterruptedException. I am unsure of why I am getting this? I thought this was because I needed a reference to the main thread so I went ahead and made a reference to it via Thread.currentThread(). Is this not the way to have the thread sleep? What I need to do is have the main thread wait/sleep/delay till it does it required work again. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Thread Local Storage and local method variables

    - by miguel
    In c#, each thread has its own stack space. If this is the case, why is the following code not thread-safe? (It is stated that this code is thread-safe on this post: Locking in C# class Foo { private int count = 0; public void TrySomething() { count++; } } As count is an int (stack variable), surely this value would be isolated to an individual thread, on its own stack, and therefore thread-safe? I am probably missing something here, but I dont understand what is actually in Thread Local Storage if not stack-based variables for the thread?

    Read the article

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