Search Results

Search found 16237 results on 650 pages for 'lock free'.

Page 5/650 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • free memory in Linux

    - by user32425
    Hi, I did free -tm on my system, and I got the output below. Is the free buffers/cache part of the used memory? And therefore we can consider it as free memory? total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 5721 5689 32 0 137 4664 -/+ buffers/cache: 887 4834 Swap: 6000 13 5987 Total: 11722 5703 6019 Thanks

    Read the article

  • A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables in SSIS

    Error: 0xC001405C at SQL Log Status: A deadlock was detected while trying to lock variables "User::RowCount" for read/write access. A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out. Have you ever considered variable locking when building your SSIS packages? I expect many people haven’t just because most of the time you never see an error like the one above. I’ll try and explain a few key concepts about variable locking and hopefully you never will see that error. First of all, what is all this variable locking all about? Put simply SSIS variables have to be locked before they can be accessed, and then of course unlocked once you have finished with them. This is baked into SSIS, presumably to reduce the risk of race conditions, but with that comes some additional overhead in that you need to be careful to avoid lock conflicts in some scenarios. The most obvious place you will come across any hint of locking (no pun intended) is the Script Task or Script Component with their ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. These two properties allow you to enter lists of variables to be used within the task, or to put it another way, these lists of variables to be locked, so that they are available within the task. During the task pre-execute phase the variables and locked, you then use them during the execute phase when you code is run, and then unlocked for you during the post-execute phase. So by entering the variable names in one of the two list, the locking is taken care of for you, and you just read and write to the Dts.Variables collection that is exposed in the task for the purpose. As you can see in the image above, the variable PackageInt is specified, which means when I write the code inside that task I don’t have to worry about locking at all, as shown below. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new Dts.Variables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } As you can see as well as accessing the variable, hassle free, I also raise an event. Now consider a scenario where I have an event hander as well as shown below. Now what if my event handler uses tries to use the same variable as well? Well obviously for the point of this post, it fails with the error quoted previously. The reason why is clearly illustrated if you consider the following sequence of events. Package execution starts Script Task in Control Flow starts Script Task in Control Flow locks the PackageInt variable as specified in the ReadWriteVariables property Script Task in Control Flow executes script, and the On Information event is raised The On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler starts Script Task in On Information event handler attempts to lock the PackageInt variable (for either read or write it doesn’t matter), but will fail because the variable is already locked. The problem is caused by the event handler task trying to use a variable that is already locked by the task in Control Flow. Events are always raised synchronously, therefore the task in Control Flow that is raising the event will not regain control until the event handler has completed, so we really do have un-resolvable locking conflict, better known as a deadlock. In this scenario we can easily resolve the problem by managing the variable locking explicitly in code, so no need to specify anything for the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables properties. public void Main() { // Set the variable value to something new, with explicit lock control Variables lockedVariables = null; Dts.VariableDispenser.LockOneForWrite("PackageInt", ref lockedVariables); lockedVariables["PackageInt"].Value = 199; lockedVariables.Unlock(); // Raise an event so we can play in the event handler bool fireAgain = true; Dts.Events.FireInformation(0, "Script Task Code", "This is the script task raising an event.", null, 0, ref fireAgain); Dts.TaskResult = (int)ScriptResults.Success; } Now the package will execute successfully because the variable lock has already been released by the time the event is raised, so no conflict occurs. For those of you with a SQL Engine background this should all sound strangely familiar, and boils down to getting in and out as fast as you can to reduce the risk of lock contention, be that SQL pages or SSIS variables. Unfortunately we cannot always manage the locking ourselves. The Execute SQL Task is very often used in conjunction with variables, either to pass in parameter values or get results out. Either way the task will manage the locking for you, and will fail when it cannot lock the variables it requires. The scenario outlined above is clear cut deadlock scenario, both parties are waiting on each other, so it is un-resolvable. The mechanism used within SSIS isn’t actually that clever, and whilst the message says it is a deadlock, it really just means it tried a few times, and then gave up. The last part of the error message is actually the most accurate in terms of the failure, A lock cannot be acquired after 16 attempts. The locks timed out.  Now this may come across as a recommendation to always manage locking manually in the Script Task or Script Component yourself, but I think that would be an overreaction. It is more of a reminder to be aware that in high concurrency scenarios, especially when sharing variables across multiple objects, locking is important design consideration. Update – Make sure you don’t try and use explicit locking as well as leaving the variable names in the ReadOnlyVariables and ReadWriteVariables lock lists otherwise you’ll get the deadlock error, you cannot lock a variable twice!

    Read the article

  • iPad Orientation Lock Notification?

    - by vakio
    Is there a way to receive a notification when the iPad gets locked? When the lock is set on or off, it does send a receivedRotate: notification, but I need a way to be able to distinguish normal rotations from lock "rotations". The problem is I am rotating things in my view when the rotation changes. When the lock is activated, the iPad sends a receivedRotate: with UIInterfaceOrientationPortrait. I've looked in UIDevice for something like isOrientationLocked, but with no success. Thanks for any clues on this.

    Read the article

  • Using lock(obj) inside a recursive call

    - by Amby
    As per my understanding a lock is not released until the runtime completes the code block of the lock(obj) ( because when the block completes it calls Monitor.Exit(obj). With this understanding i am not able to understand the reason behind the behaviour of the following code. private static string obj = ""; private static void RecurseSome(int number) { Console.WriteLine(number); lock (obj) { RecurseSome(++number); } } //Call: RecurseSome(0) //Output: 0 1 2 3...... stack overflow exception There must be some concept that i am missing. Please help.

    Read the article

  • lock statement not working when there is a loop inside it?

    - by Ngu Soon Hui
    See this code: public class multiply { public Thread myThread; public int Counter { get; private set; } public string name { get; private set; } public void RunConsolePrint() { lock(this) { RunLockCode("lock"); } } private void RunLockCode(string lockCode) { Console.WriteLine("Now thread "+lockCode+" " + name + " has started"); for (int i = 1; i <= Counter; i++) { Console.WriteLine(lockCode+" "+name + ": count has reached " + i + ": total count is " + Counter); } Console.WriteLine("Thread " + lockCode + " " + name + " has finished"); } public multiply(string pname, int pCounter) { name = pname; Counter = pCounter; myThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunConsolePrint)); } } And this is the test run code: static void Main(string[] args) { int counter = 50; multiply m2 = new multiply("Second", counter); multiply m1 = new multiply("First", counter); m1.myThread.Start(); m2.myThread.Start(); Console.ReadLine(); } I would expect that m2 must execute from start to finish before m1 starts executing, or vice versa, because of the lock statement. But the result I found was the call to lock first and lock second was intermingled together, i.e., something like this Now thread lock First has started Now thread lock Second has started lock First: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 lock First: Count has reached 2: total count is 50 lock Second: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 What did I do wrong?

    Read the article

  • Map caps-lock key to middle mouse click

    - by Stefano Palazzo
    Since I rarely use caps-lock, I'd like to map the key to a middle mouse click instead. I would also like to map Alt+Caps Lock to the original function of the caps lock key, should I ever need it. I can map any keyboard shortcut to xdotool click 2, but the Gnome Keyboard Shortcuts dialog won't let me assign a command to the caps-lock key, even with modifiers. I know this is a bit of a strange undertaking; How would I go about doing it?

    Read the article

  • How do I turn off the onscreen keyboard on the lock screen?

    - by Patrick Marchwiak
    The lock screen has an on screen keyboard that I am unable to disable. I don't remember exactly but I believe I turned it on using the "Screen Keyboard" setting in the Universal Access settings. I've tried a number of things all with no effect: Toggling "Screen Keyboard" in Universal Access Toggling "Onscreen keyboard" in the login screen (LightDM) Clicking on the "x" in the upper right corner of the keyboard

    Read the article

  • Map caps-lock key to middle mouse click

    - by Stefano Palazzo
    Since I rarely use caps-lock, I'd like to map the key to a middle mouse click instead. I would also like to map Alt+Caps Lock to the original function of the caps lock key, should I ever need it. I can map any keyboard shortcut to xdotool click 2, but the Gnome Keyboard Shortcuts dialog won't let me assign a command to the caps-lock key, even with modifiers. I know this is a bit of a strange undertaking; How would I go about doing it?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu, trouble getting back from lock screen

    - by Navid
    My problem is that after being idle for a while, the screen is locked and after this happened I get a black screen from which I can't get rid of. I mean after black screen comes, typing and moving mouse does not bring any new screen, and even alt+ctrl+F1 to F7 changes nothing. All I can do is to restart the system. Can anybody help me with this?

    Read the article

  • How to disable Windows 8 lock screen?

    - by Filip
    So I took a plunge and installed Windows 8 Consumer Preview on my main home PC. So far so good, but there is one annoyance - the system "locks" the computer after a period of inactivity causing me to re-enter my password. I really would like to avoid this, but have no idea how. I already tried the power settings (no pass on wake up) and the screen saver settings with no luck. Is this some sort of bug, or am I missing something? P.S. In this case I favor convenience over security.

    Read the article

  • Lock Windows keyboard and mouse but still display screen normally

    - by Stephen Lacy
    I'm using windows 7, I have a dual monitor display. It displays important information related to the business, I'd rather that random users that walk in can't just walk over to it and start using the computer with the same access rights as the user the monitoring software is running as. What I would like is if any time someone presses a button on the keyboard including alt-ctrl-delete all that would appear is a dialog asking for a password. Then I can click cancel and it will return to showing the data I want displayed. ClearLock doesn't work I tried it btw

    Read the article

  • Difference Between Monitor & Lock?

    - by Goober
    What's the difference between a monitor and a lock? If a lock is simply an implementation of mutual exclusion, then is a monitor simply a way of making use of the waiting time inbetween method executions? A good explanation would be really helpful thanks.... regards

    Read the article

  • [PHP] Read and write to a file while keeping lock

    - by Znarkus
    Hi! I am making a simple page load counter by storing the current count in a file. This is how I want to do this: Lock the file Read the current count Increment it Write new count Unlock file/close it Can this be done? As I understand it, the file can't be written to without losing the lock. The only way I have come up with to tackle this, is to write a character using "r+" mode, and then counting characters.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 13.10 japanese keyboard layout intercepts Caps Lock

    - by Envek
    I've installed Ubuntu 13.10 (clean install on new machine), there are lot of changes for configuring keyboard layouts and I've tried to configure it as I've used earlier: Englis (US), Russian and Japanese (Anthy) with switching between them with Caps Lock key. (See screenshot) Caps Lock switching works fine between Russian and English and vice-versa, but with Japanese I can switch only TO Japanese (not FROM), in Japanese layout Caps Lock starting to work as usual Caps Lock (as a switch between small and BIG letters), so I need to use mouse to switch back to Ru or En layout. This happens ONLY with Japanese layouts (I've tried also simply "Japanese" and "Japanese (Kana)"), not with Chinese, Korean or anything else. I'm not sure who is blame for that, is it ibus-anthy or anything. Please help, I want to use Caps Lock to switch between all layouts. Also, I've created a bug in the LaunchPad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/1247363

    Read the article

  • Free java hosting?

    - by user24729
    Could anyone tell me some free hosting on which I can run my java web application even for a day? I don't want free forever. Free for 2-3 days will be fine I searched a lot on net but couldn't find anything. I just have some .html pages and some servlets in my java web application.

    Read the article

  • Looking for a lock-free RT-safe single-reader single-writer structure

    - by moala
    Hi, I'm looking for a lock-free design conforming to these requisites: a single writer writes into a structure and a single reader reads from this structure (this structure exists already and is safe for simultaneous read/write) but at some time, the structure needs to be changed by the writer, which then initialises, switches and writes into a new structure (of the same type but with new content) and at the next time the reader reads, it switches to this new structure (if the writer multiply switches to a new lock-free structure, the reader discards these structures, ignoring their data). The structures must be reused, i.e. no heap memory allocation/free is allowed during write/read/switch operation, for RT purposes. I have currently implemented a ringbuffer containing multiple instances of these structures; but this implementation suffers from the fact that when the writer has used all the structures present in the ringbuffer, there is no more place to change from structure... But the rest of the ringbuffer contains some data which don't have to be read by the reader but can't be re-used by the writer. As a consequence, the ringbuffer does not fit this purpose. Any idea (name or pseudo-implementation) of a lock-free design? Thanks for having considered this problem.

    Read the article

  • Rails running multiple delayed_job - lock tables

    - by pepernik
    Hey. I use delayed_job for background processing. I have 8 CPU server, MySQL and I start 7 delayed_job processes RAILS_ENV=production script/delayed_job -n 7 start Q1: I'm wondering is it possible that 2 or more delayed_job processes start processing the same process (the same record-row in the database delayed_jobs). I checked the code of the delayed_job plugin but can not find the lock directive in a way it should be. I think each process should lock the database table before executing an UPDATE on lock_by column. They lock the record simply by updating the locked_by field (UPDATE delayed_jobs SET locked_by...). Is that really enough? No locking needed? Why? I know that UPDATE has higher priority than SELECT but I think this does not have the effect in this case. My understanding of the multy-threaded situation is: Process1: Get waiting job X. [OK] Process2: Get waiting jobs X. [OK] Process1: Update locked_by field. [OK] Process2: Update locked_by field. [OK] Process1: Get waiting job X. [Already processed] Process2: Get waiting jobs X. [Already processed] I think in some cases more jobs can get the same information and can start processing the same process. Q2: Is 7 delayed_jobs a good number for 8CPU server? Why yes/not. Thx 10x!

    Read the article

  • lock shared data using c#

    - by menacheb
    Hi, I have a program (C#) with a list of tests to do. Also, I have two thread. one to add task into the list, and one to read and remove from it the performed tasks. I'm using the 'lock' function each time one of the threads want to access to the list. Another thing I want to do is, if the list is empty, the thread who need to read from the list will sleep. and wake up when the first thread add a task to the list. Here is the code I wrote: ... List<String> myList = new List(); Thread writeThread, readThread; writeThread = new Thread(write); writeThread.Start(); readThraed = new Thread(read); readThread.Start(); ... private void write() { while(...) { ... lock(myList) { myList.Add(...); } ... if (!readThread.IsAlive) { readThraed = new Thread(read); readThread.Start(); } ... } ... } private void read() { bool noMoreTasks = false; while (!noMoreTasks) { lock (MyList)//syncronize with the ADD func. { if (dataFromClientList.Count > 0) { String task = myList.First(); myList.Remove(task); } else { noMoreTasks = true; } } ... } readThread.Abort(); } Apparently I did it wrong, and it's not performed as expected (The readTread does't read from the list). Does anyone know what is my problem, and how to make it right? Many thanks,

    Read the article

  • Apartment management software. Apartment accounting software FREE.

    - by Jay Kinker
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/JayKinker/archive/2014/08/13/apartment-management-software.-apartment-accounting-software-free.aspx How are you managing your society today? How about bill generation & collection or socializing at your housing society?   Check out the all new online and offline services to manage your society. Online management and accounting software for housing society is free now. Get your housing society or neighbourhood online today for FREE.   Get a new amenity at your society today!   Societyhive services: www.societyhive.com Societyhive helpdesk: www.societyhive.com/helpdesk   Helpdesk is a free service to provide legal and management advice for societies. Do let me know if you have any feature request you’d want to see at Societyhive.

    Read the article

  • Lock Free Queue -- Single Producer, Multiple Consumers

    - by Shirish
    Hello, I am looking for a method to implement lock-free queue data structure that supports single producer, and multiple consumers. I have looked at the classic method by Maged Michael and Michael Scott (1996) but their version uses linked lists. I would like an implementation that makes use of bounded circular buffer. Something that uses atomic variables? On a side note, I am not sure why these classic methods are designed for linked lists that require a lot of dynamic memory management. In a multi-threaded program, all memory management routines are serialized. Aren't we defeating the benefits of lock-free methods by using them in conjunction with dynamic data structures? I am trying to code this in C/C++ using pthread library on a Intel 64-bit architecture. Thank you, Shirish

    Read the article

  • Does the pointer to free() have to point to beginning of the memory block, or can it point to the interior?

    - by Lambert
    The question is in the title... I searched but couldn't find anything. Edit: I don't really see any need to explain this, but because people think that what I'm saying makes no sense (and that I'm asking the wrong questions), here's the problem: Since people seem to be very interested in the "root" cause of all the problem rather than the actual question asked (since that apparently helps things get solved better, let's see if it does), here's the problem: I'm trying to make a D runtime library based on NTDLL.dll, so that I can use that library for subsystems other than the Win32 subsystem. So that forces me to only link with NTDLL.dll. Yes, I'm aware that the functions are "undocumented" and could change at any time (even though I'd bet a hundred dollars that wcstombs will still do the same exact thing 20 years from now, if it still exists). Yes, I know people (especially Microsoft) don't like developers linking to that library, and that I'll probably get criticized for the right here. And yes, those two points above mean that programs like chkdsk and defragmenters that run before the Win32 subsystem aren't even supposed to be created in the first place, because it's literally impossible to link with anything like kernel32.dll or msvcrt.dll and still have NT-native executables, so we developers should just pretend that those stages are meant to be forever out of our reaches. But no, I doubt that anyone here would like me to paste a few thousand lines of code and help me look through them and try to figure out why memory allocations that aren't failing are being rejected by the source code I'm modifying. So that's why I asked about a different problem than the "root" cause, even though that's supposedly known to be the best practice by the community. If things still don't make sense, feel free to post comments below! :)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >