Search Results

Search found 10883 results on 436 pages for 'thread timeout'.

Page 22/436 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • svn connection timeout

    - by Tom celic
    I have Ubuntu 12.04 running in virtual box inside Windows 7. I have the network adapter set as NAT and everything networking wise seems to be running smoothly (internet / git ect.). However, for some reason, svn always times out when i.e michael@michael-VirtualBox:~/Documents/deleteme$ svn co svn://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/trunk/ svn: Can't connect to host 'svn.openwrt.org': Connection timed out Somebody suggested to me that I might need to change what ports svn uses. Does anybody have any idea how to diagnose / solve the problem? Thanks!

    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

  • Possible to use screen lock as timeout? [duplicate]

    - by Alex
    This question already has an answer here: Any app that tells me to take regular breaks from working? 3 answers What I'd like to do is lock the screen and have it wait a set amount of time (eg 20 mins) before it lets me log back in - so I make myself to have a break from the computer. Is it possible to do this? Thanks EDIT: Thanks for the suggestions - but I don't actually want something to remind me to take scheduled breaks. More something I can click when I realise I'm getting distracted and it'll immediately lock the screen for a fixed amount of time. Or even just lock screen if I can find a way to stop it letting me log in for 20 mins or so.

    Read the article

  • Configure mounting timeout at boot

    - by René Pieters
    On remotely rebooting a 12.04 machine I found it hanging at the "unable to mount soandso: Skip, Manual Abort? " (That's pretty much how I remember the message) The machine was basically stopped there until I hooked up a keyboard and pressed "s". I can see the rationale for the question, but I'd really like to know where to configure it or turn it off altogether. A mandatory question like this makes sense in a desktop environment but for servers I'd like more flexibility. So where do I fiddle and tweak this?

    Read the article

  • notify-send ignores timeout?

    - by Hooked
    Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but shouldn't the commands (run separately) notify-send -t 1 "test" notify-send -t 1000 "test" notify-send -t 10000 "test" Have different timeouts? The first being nearly instantaneous, the second one taking 1 sec and the third 100 seconds. In all cases it seems to take about six seconds. I'm using the development branch of Precise, if this isn't an issue in the released version I'll close this as being too localized, but I'm unable to test it now.

    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

  • Cannot get grub menu to timeout (or go away)

    - by Eric
    I am running Ubuntu 12.04. I cannot for the life of me get the grub menu (with options) to go away. I would like it to auto-boot into the first option. I've edited /etc/default/grub so that it looks like the following: GRUB_DEFAULT=0 GRUB_HIDDEN_TIMEOUT=0 GRUB_HIDDEN_TIMEOUT_QUIET=true GRUB_TIMEOUT=10 GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=`lsb_release -i -s 2> /dev/null || echo Debian` GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet splash" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="" After this, I ran sudo update-grub. Then I realized that I had grub 2, so I ran sudo update-grub2 (both make it look like they create the grub.cfg file successfully. I restart my computer and it goes back to the grub menu and just sits there until I make a choice. This is not desirable if the power goes out... :-) I also tried reinstalling grub using sudo grub-install /dev/sda - also unsuccessful

    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

  • How to correctly stop thread which is using Control.Invoke

    - by codymanix
    I tried the following (pseudocode) but I always get a deadlock when Iam trying to stop my thread. The problem is that Join() waits for the thread to complete and a pending Invoke() operation is also waiting to complete. How can I solve this? Thread workerThread = new Thread(BackupThreadRunner); volatile bool cancel; // this is the thread worker routine void BackupThreadRunner() { while (!cancel) { DoStuff(); ReportProgress(); } } // main thread void ReportProgress() { if (InvokeRequired) { Invoke(ReportProgress); } UpdateStatusBarAndStuff(); } // main thread void DoCancel() { cancel=true; workerThread.Join(); }

    Read the article

  • Java: serial thread confinement question

    - by denis
    Assume you have a Collection(ConcurrentLinkedQueue) of Runnables with mutable state. Thread A iterates over the Collection and hands the Runnables to an ExecutorService. The run() method changes the Runnables state. The Runnable has no internal synchronization. The above is a repetitive action and the worker threads need to see the changes made by previous iterations. So a Runnable gets processed by one worker thread after another, but is never accessed by more than one thread at a time - a case of serial thread confinement(i hope ;)). The question: Will it work just with the internal synchronization of the ConcurrentLinkedQueue/ExecutorSerivce? To be more precise: If Thread A hands Runnable R to worker thread B and B changes the state of R, and then A hands R to worker thread C..does C see the modifications done by B?

    Read the article

  • c style thread creation in python

    - by chandank
    Hi I am new to python and want to create multiple threads in a loop something like (in C style) for (;i < 10; i++) thread[i]= pthread_create(&thread[i],&attr,func) I am not sure how to do the same in python? Basically I want have that thread[] variable as global will create all thread at once and then will start then in once. I have written a similar python program that does it but I think having it in above style will be better. def thread_create(thread_number): command_string = "Thread-" + "%d" %thread_number thread = myThread(thread_number, command_string) thread.start() # Start new Threads for i in range(5): thread_create(i)

    Read the article

  • Java Thread Message Passing

    - by pkulak
    I'm writing an Android app. I have a main method, which creates and runs a new Thread using an anonymous inner Runnable class. The run() method, when it's done, calls a method on it's parent class (in the main thread) that calls notifyDataSetChanged() so that the main thread can redraw the new data. This is causing all kinds of trouble (ViewRoot$CalledFromWrongThreadException). The thing is, this method being called from the worker thread is on the class that's created in the UI thread. Shouldn't that be running on the UI thread? Or am I missing something? Here's some code about what I'm talking about: public class Mealfire extends Activity { @Override public void onCreate(Bundle icicle) { (new Thread() { public void run() { // Do a bunch of slow network stuff. update(); } }).start(); } private void update() { myAdapter.notifyDatasetChanged(); } }

    Read the article

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • Does SetThreadPriority cause thread reschedulling?

    - by Suma
    Consider following situation, assuming single CPU system: thread A is running with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL, signals event E thread B with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST is waiting for an event E (Note: at this point the thread is not scheduled because it is runnable, but A is higher priority and runnable as well) thread A calls SetThreadPriority(B, THREAD_PRIORITY_ABOVE_NORMAL) Is thread B re-scheduled immediately to run, or is thread A allowed to continue until current time-slice is over, and B is scheduled only once a new time-slice has begun? I would be interested to know the answer for WinXP, Vista and Win7, if possible. Note: the scenario above is simplified from my real world code, where multiple threads are running on multiple cores, but the main object of the question stays: does SetThreadPriority cause thread scheduling to happen?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >