Search Results

Search found 527 results on 22 pages for 'unlock'.

Page 7/22 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

• Prompted to type password (for installation purpose) AFTER I removed my password. What to do?

  - by Matiss Janis Aboltinš

  I just installed Ubuntu and one of the 1st things that I did was - remove my password. I went into settings - user accounts, clicked on the unlock icon and changed the password to nothing, made it so it doesn't require me to log in, but yet, when I try to install some software I get prompted to type in my password. I tried using nothing and my old password - neither of them work. What should I do to fix this? Do I really have to re-install Ubuntu?

  Read the article

• Mount a LUKS partition at boot

  - by Adam Matan

  Hi, I have installed an Ubuntu machine with two encrypted LUKS partitions: one for / and one for /home. I've reinstalled the machine to upgrade to 10.04. Again, the / is installed using LUKS, and I'm able to mount the /home using: mkdir /media/home sudo cryptsetup luksOpen /dev/sda2 home sudo mount -t ext3 /dev/mapper/home /media/home The problem is, this cryptfs mapper disappears after boot, so I putting the appropriate line in fstab fails. How do I set the cryptfs to prompt for password and unlock the drive at boot? Thanks, Adam

  Read the article

• What does 'Lock Version' do?

  - by richzilla

  Having installed an experimental version of dropbox and installed in manually, i dont want the deb in synaptic to download any updates (as theyll over write the changes ive done manually i assume). Ive found the lock version option in synaptic, im assuming this stops a particular deb from downloading any new versions of itself? Also can i just unlock it again when the version from the deb catches up with the experimental version that i have installed? Am i correct or does it serve another function?

  Read the article

• UPMC Picks Oracle Identity Management

  - by Naresh Persaud

  UPMC, a $10-billion integrated global health enterprise, has selected Oracle as a key technology partner in UPMC’s $100-million analytics initiative designed to help “unlock the secrets of human health and disease” by consolidating and analyzing data from 200 separate sources across UPMC’s far-flung network.As part of the project UPMC also selected Oracle Identity Management to secure the interaction and insure regulatory compliance. Read complete article here. As healthcare organizations create new services on-line to provide better care Identity Management can provide a foundation for collaboration.

  Read the article

• APress Deal of the Day 27/Jun/2013 - Pro Windows Phone App Development

  - by TATWORTH

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TATWORTH/archive/2013/06/27/apress-deal-of-the-day-27jun2013---pro-windows-phone.aspxToday's $10 Deal of the Day from APress at http://www.apress.com/9781430239369 is Pro Windows Phone App Development"Pro Windows Phone 7 Development helps you unlock the potential of Microsoft's newest mobile platform and updates—NoDo and Mango—to develop visually rich, highly functional applications for the Windows Phone Marketplace."

  Read the article

• Login keyring box frozen

  - by Maddie

  I'm new to ubuntu and I'm afraid I've done something really stupid. After booting, When prompted to enter a password to unlock my login keyring, I tried to enter in my password, but it won't let me. I can move my cursor but everything else is frozen. I tried to access the terminal by using Ctrl + Alt + F2, I entered my login and password from there and it worked, I just don't know what to do afterwards. Don't know what other information I can provide other than the fact that I am using Ubuntu 10.04

  Read the article

• SSMS: The Query Window Keyboard Shortcuts

  Simple-Talk's free wallchart of the most important SSMS keyboard shortcuts aims to help find all those curiously forgettable key combinations within SQL Server Management Studio that unlock the hidden magic that is available for editing and executing queries. The Future of SQL Server MonitoringMonitor wherever, whenever with Red Gate's SQL Monitor. See it live in action now.

  Read the article

• WebDAV through Apache2 permissions/missing files

  - by Strifariz

  I have a WebDAV setup on Apache2 on a server running Debian 5.0 (Lenny), which I am accessing through a mapped network drive under Windows 7. The setup appears to run fine, I receive no permission errors when copying a file to the share the first time, but the file never shows up in the directory (it's invisible, doing a ls -lha on the directory as root on the server also shows no files. When attempting to copy the file once more I am informed that the file already exists though, and I am asked if I wish to overwrite the file, when selecting "Yes" to this, I receive a permission error saying I'm not able to write to the folder. My logs aren't reporting any access violations of any kind, what could be the problem? (See log excerpt below) [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "PUT /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "PUT /1.png HTTP/1.1" 201 304 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "LOCK /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "LOCK /1.png HTTP/1.1" 200 447 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "PROPPATCH /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "PROPPATCH /1.png HTTP/1.1" 207 389 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "HEAD /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 - "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "HEAD /1.png HTTP/1.1" 200 - "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:34 +0100] "PUT /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:35 +0100] "PUT /1.png HTTP/1.1" 204 - "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:35 +0100] "PROPPATCH /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:35 +0100] "PROPPATCH /1.png HTTP/1.1" 207 389 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:35 +0100] "UNLOCK /1.png HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:35 +0100] "UNLOCK /1.png HTTP/1.1" 204 - "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:38 +0100] "PROPFIND / HTTP/1.1" 401 525 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600" [17/Jan/2011:10:26:38 +0100] "PROPFIND / HTTP/1.1" 207 1634 "-" "Microsoft-WebDAV-MiniRedir/6.1.7600"

  Read the article

• The BitLocker encrypted logical drive of my laptop is not accessible. On clicking error appears,"Application not found"

  - by Nauman Khan

  I had an important personal data that was stored in my laptop drive 'F'. My 4 year old son also uses my laptop to play games. To secure my data I used bitlocker software that was already there in my windows 7 ultimate 32 bit. I am using a Dell D 630 Core2Duo laptop. The thing worked fine for me and I have been able to access my data in drive 'F' as and when I required. But today, when I tried to open my 'F' drive, an error box appeared saying "Application not found". I right clicked and checked 'properties' of 'F' drive. It showed me Used Space = 0 bytes and Free Space = 0 bytes. I opened 'Disk Management' which showed my 'F' drive file system as 'Unknown (Bitlocker Encrypted). 'Disk Management' is also showing my 'F' drive as healthy logical drive. I opened 'Manage bitlocker' and found that my 'F' drive was being shown locked and 'Unlock Drive' was displayed against it, however, when i click on 'Unlock Drive', it does not function. I opened 'TPM Administration' and found an information that 'Compatible TPM cannot be found'. My bitlocker encryption was working fine which means that I had a compatible TPM in my laptop. Where has it gone? How can I enable it? Is my 'F' Drive lost forever and thus the data in there as well?

  Read the article

• Unit Testing Refcounted Critical Section Class

  - by BillyONeal

  Hello all :) I'm looking at a simple class I have to manage critical sections and locks, and I'd like to cover this with test cases. Does this make sense, and how would one go about doing it? It's difficult because the only way to verify the class works is to setup very complicated threading scenarios, and even then there's not a good way to test for a leak of a Critical Section in Win32. Is there a more direct way to make sure it's working correctly? Here's the code: CriticalSection.hpp: #pragma once #include <windows.h> namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { class CriticalSection; class CriticalLock { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; bool lockValid; friend class CriticalSection; CriticalLock(std::size_t *, CRITICAL_SECTION *, bool); public: bool IsValid() { return lockValid; }; void Unlock(); ~CriticalLock() { Unlock(); }; }; class CriticalSection { std::size_t *instanceCount; CRITICAL_SECTION * criticalStructure; public: CriticalSection(); CriticalSection(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& operator=(const CriticalSection&); CriticalSection& swap(CriticalSection&); ~CriticalSection(); CriticalLock Enter(); CriticalLock TryEnter(); }; }} CriticalSection.cpp: #include "CriticalSection.hpp" namespace WindowsAPI { namespace Threading { CriticalSection::CriticalSection() { criticalStructure = new CRITICAL_SECTION; instanceCount = new std::size_t; *instanceCount = 1; InitializeCriticalSection(criticalStructure); } CriticalSection::CriticalSection(const CriticalSection& other) { criticalStructure = other.criticalStructure; instanceCount = other.instanceCount; instanceCount++; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::operator=(const CriticalSection& other) { CriticalSection copyOfOther(other); swap(copyOfOther); return *this; } CriticalSection& CriticalSection::swap(CriticalSection& other) { std::swap(other.instanceCount, instanceCount); std::swap(other.criticalStructure, other.criticalStructure); return *this; } CriticalSection::~CriticalSection() { if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } CriticalLock CriticalSection::Enter() { EnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure); (*instanceCount)++; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, true); } CriticalLock CriticalSection::TryEnter() { bool lockAquired; if (TryEnterCriticalSection(criticalStructure)) { (*instanceCount)++; lockAquired = true; } else lockAquired = false; return CriticalLock(instanceCount, criticalStructure, lockAquired); } void CriticalLock::Unlock() { if (!lockValid) return; LeaveCriticalSection(criticalStructure); lockValid = false; if (!--(*instanceCount)) { DeleteCriticalSection(criticalStructure); delete criticalStructure; delete instanceCount; } } }}

  Read the article

• Using boost locks for RAII access to a semaphore

  - by dan

  Suppose I write a C++ semaphore class with an interface that models the boost Lockable concept (i.e. lock(); unlock(); try_lock(); etc.). Is it safe/recommended to use boost locks for RAII access to such an object? In other words, do boost locks (and/or other related parts of the boost thread library) assume that the Lockable concept will only be modeled by mutex-like objects which are locked and unlocked from the same thread? My guess is that it should be OK to use a semaphore as a model for Lockable. I've browsed through some of the boost source and it "seems" OK. The locks don't appear to store explicit references to this_thread or anything like that. Moreover, the Lockable concept doesn't have any function like whichThreadOwnsMe(). It also looks like I should even be able to pass a boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> reference to boost::condition_variable_any::wait. However, the documentation is not explicitly clear about the requirements. To illustrate what I mean, consider a bare-bones binary semaphore class along these lines: class MySemaphore{ bool locked; boost::mutex mx; boost::condition_variable cv; public: void lock(){ boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lck(mx); while(locked) cv.wait(lck); locked=true; } void unlock(){ { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lck(mx); if(!locked) error(); locked=false; } cv.notify_one(); } // bool try_lock(); void error(); etc. } Now suppose that somewhere, either on an object or globally, I have MySemaphore sem; I want to lock and unlock it using RAII. Also I want to be able to "pass" ownership of the lock from one thread to another. For example, in one thread I execute void doTask() { boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore> lock(sem); doSomeWorkWithSharedObject(); signalToSecondThread(); waitForSignalAck(); lock.release(); } While another thread is executing something like { waitForSignalFromFirstThread(); ackSignal(); boost::unique_lock<MySemaphore>(sem,boost::adopt_lock_t()); doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(); } The reason I am doing this is that I don't want anyone else to be able to get the lock on sem in between the time that the first thread executes doSomeWorkWithSharedObject() and the time the second executes doMoreWorkWithSameSharedObject(). Basically, I'm splitting one task into two parts. And the reason I'm splitting the task up is because (1) I want the first part of the task to get started as soon as possible, (2) I want to guarantee that the first part is complete before doTask() returns, and (3) I want the second, more time-consuming part of the task to be completed by another thread, possibly chosen from a pool of slave threads that are waiting around to finish tasks that have been started by master threads. NOTE: I recently posted this same question (sort of) here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2754884/unlocking-a-mutex-from-a-different-thread-c but I confused mutexes with semaphores, and so the question about using boost locks didn't really get addressed.

  Read the article

• is it right to call ejb bean from thread by ThreadPoolExecutor?

  - by kislo_metal

  I trying to call some ejb bean method from tread. and getting error : (as is glassfish v3) Log Level SEVERE Logger javax.enterprise.system.std.com.sun.enterprise.v3.services.impl Name-Value Pairs {_ThreadName=Thread-1, _ThreadID=42} Record Number 928 Message ID java.lang.NullPointerException at ua.co.rufous.server.broker.TempLicService.run(TempLicService.java Complete Message 35) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:637) here is tread public class TempLicService implements Runnable { String hash; //it`s Stateful bean @EJB private LicActivatorLocal lActivator; public TempLicService(String hash) { this.hash= hash; } @Override public void run() { lActivator.proccessActivation(hash); } } my ThreadPoolExecutor public class RequestThreadPoolExecutor extends ThreadPoolExecutor { private boolean isPaused; private ReentrantLock pauseLock = new ReentrantLock(); private Condition unpaused = pauseLock.newCondition(); private static RequestThreadPoolExecutor threadPool; private RequestThreadPoolExecutor() { super(1, Integer.MAX_VALUE, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS, new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>()); System.out.println("RequestThreadPoolExecutor created"); } public static RequestThreadPoolExecutor getInstance() { if (threadPool == null) threadPool = new RequestThreadPoolExecutor(); return threadPool; } public void runService(Runnable task) { threadPool.execute(task); } protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) { super.beforeExecute(t, r); pauseLock.lock(); try { while (isPaused) unpaused.await(); } catch (InterruptedException ie) { t.interrupt(); } finally { pauseLock.unlock(); } } public void pause() { pauseLock.lock(); try { isPaused = true; } finally { pauseLock.unlock(); } } public void resume() { pauseLock.lock(); try { isPaused = false; unpaused.signalAll(); } finally { pauseLock.unlock(); } } public void shutDown() { threadPool.shutdown(); } //<<<<<< creating thread here public void runByHash(String hash) { Runnable service = new TempLicService(hash); threadPool.runService(service); } } and method where i call it (it is gwt servlet, but there is no proble to call thread that not contain ejb) : @Override public Boolean submitHash(String hash) { System.out.println("submiting hash"); try { if (tBoxService.getTempLicStatus(hash) == 1) { //<<< here is the call RequestThreadPoolExecutor.getInstance().runByHash(hash); return true; } } catch (NoResultException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } return false; } I need to organize some pool of submitting hash to server (calls of LicActivator bean), is ThreadPoolExecutor design good idea and why it is not working in my case? (as I know we can`t create thread inside bean, but could we call bean from different threads? ). If No, what is the bast practice for organize such request pool? Thanks. << Answer: I am using DI (EJB 3.1) soo i do not need any look up here. (application packed in ear and both modules in it (web module and ejb), it works perfect for me). But I can use it only in managed classes. So.. 2.Can I use manual look up in Tread ? Could I use Bean that extends ThreadPoolExecutor and calling another bean that implements Runnable ? Or it is not allowed ?

  Read the article

• BizTalk and IBM WebSphere MQ Errors

  - by Christopher House

  The project I'm currently working on is going to make heavy use of IBM WebShere MQ to send messages from BizTalk to the client's iSeries box.  I'd never previously worked with WebSphere MQ, so I didn't really have any idea what it would take to get this to work.  I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't too difficult to configure a send port and pass messages through it to a queue.  Or so I thought... A couple of weeks ago, the client gave me the name of a host, queue manager and queue that I'd been using for my development.  Everything was going great, I was able to put messages onto the queue, I was happy, the client was happy.  Life was good.  Then the client tells me that the host I've been connecting to is actually a Solaris box and that in prod, we'll actually be sending to an iSeries.  We both agree that it would behoove us to start pointing my dev environment to their dev iSeries box in order to flush out any weirdness there might be.  As it turns out, it was a good thing we made the change.  As soon as I reconfigured my BRE policy that sets endpoint information to point to the iSeries queue, we started seeing failures in the event log.  An example from the event log: Event Type: Error Event Source: BizTalk Server 2009 Event Category: BizTalk Server 2009 Event ID: 5754 Date:  6/9/2010 Time:  10:16:41 AM User:  N/A Computer: WINDOWS2003 Description: A message sent to adapter "MQSC" on send port "<my dynamic sendport name>" with URI "mqsc://client/tcp/<hostname>(1414)/<queue manager name>/<queue name>" is suspended.  Error details: Failure encountered while attempting to open queue. queue = <queue name> queueManager = <queue manager name>, reasonCode = 6124  MessageId:  {76825C7C-611A-4A56-8A6F-35E1124BDB5C}  InstanceID: {BA389103-DF9B-493F-8C61-44574822AAD6} The key piece of information in the event entry is the reasonCode, 6124.  A quick Google search shows that reasonCode 6124 is the code for MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED.  According to IBM's docs, this means that you've tried to send a message without first opening a connection to the queue manager.  Obviously, in the context of BizTalk, this is an unexpected error, since this sort of thing should be managed entirely by the send adapter. Perusing IBM's documentation a bit more, I came across some info on how to turn on tracing for MQ.  With tracing enabled, I tried sending a message again, then went and reviewed the trace files.  The bulk of the information in the trace files didn't mean a thing to me, but at the end of one of the files, I did notice this: 00006257 15:40:20.327795   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------{  reqReleaseConn 00006258 15:40:20.328714   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------}  reqReleaseConn (rc=OK) 00006259 15:40:20.328727   3500.4      RSESS:000009 ------{  xcsClearTraceIdent 0000625A 15:40:20.328739   3500.4           :       ------}  xcsClearTraceIdent (rc=OK) 0000625B 15:40:20.328752   3500.4           :       -----}! trmzstMQCONNX (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625C 15:40:20.328765   3500.4           :       ----}! MQCONNX (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625D 15:40:20.328766   3500.4           :       ---}! ImqQueueManager::connect (rc=MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED) 0000625E 15:40:20.328767   3500.4           :       --}! ImqObject::open (rc=MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED) 0000625F 15:40:20.328768   3500.4           :       --{  ImqQueue::lock 00006260 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --}! ImqQueue::lock (rc=Unknown(1)) 00006261 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --{  ImqQueue::unlock 00006262 15:40:20.328769   3500.4           :       --}! ImqQueue::unlock (rc=Unknown(1)) It seemed like the MQRC_NOT_CONNECTED error was being caused by a security related issue (MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED).  I did notice something earlier in the log where it appeared that MQ was passing a field named UID with a value equal to the account name that my BizTalk service was running under.  I ended up creating a new local account on the BizTalk server that had the same name as a user which had access to the queue manager on the iSeries.  I then created a new host instance that ran under this new account, created a send handler for the MQSC adapter on this new host instance and reconfigured my orchestration to run on the new host instance.  After bouncing all my host instances, I was now able to send messages to the iSeries. It's still not clear to me why we were able to connect to the Solaris server.  I ended up contacting IBM's support and they did confirm that the process sending to MQ does in fact pass the identity to the queue manager it's connecting to.

  Read the article

• Steps for MySQL DB Replication

  - by Manish Agrawal

  Following are the steps for MySQL Replication implementation on Linux machine: Pre-implementation steps for DB Replication:   1.    Identify the databases to be replicated 2.    Identify the tables to be ignored during replication per database for example log tables 3.  Carefully identify and replace the variables and paths(locations) mentioned (in bold) in the commands given below with appropriate values 4.  Schedule the maintenance activity in odd hours as these activities will affect all the databases on Master database server       Implementation steps for DB Replication:     1.    Configure the /etc/my.cnf file on Master database server to enable Binary logging, setting of server id and configuring of dbnames for which logging should be done. [mysqld] log-bin=mysql-bin server-id=1 binlog-do-db = dbname   Note: You can specify multiple DB in binlog-do-db by using comma separated dbname values like: dbname1, dbname2, …, dbnameN   2.    On Master database, Grant Replication Slave Privileges, by executing following command on mysql prompt mysql> GRANT REPLICATION SLAVE ON *.* TO slaveuser@<hostname> identified by ‘slavepassword’;   3.    Stop the Master & Slave database by giving the command      mysqladmin shutdown   4.    Start the Master database by giving the command      /usr/local/mysql-5.0.22/bin/mysqld_safe --user=user&     5.    mysql> FLUSH TABLES WITH READ LOCK; Note: Leave the client (putty session) from which you issued the FLUSH TABLES statement running, so that the read lock remains in effect. If you exit the client, the lock is released. 6.    mysql > SHOW MASTER STATUS;          +---------------+----------+--------------+------------------+          | File          | Position | Binlog_Do_DB | Binlog_Ignore_DB |          +---------------+----------+--------------+------------------+          | mysql-bin.003 | 117       | dbname       |                  |          +---------------+----------+--------------+------------------+ Note: Note this information as this will be required while starting of Slave and replication in later steps   7.    Take MySQL dump by giving the following command, In another session window (putty window) run the following command: mysqldump –u user --ignore-table=dbname.tbl_name -–ignore-table=dbname.tbl_name2 --master-data dbname > dbname_dump.db Note: When choosing databases to include in the dump, remember that you will need to filter out databases on each slave that you do not want to include in the replication process.     8.    Unlock the tables on Master by giving following command: mysql> UNLOCK TABLES;   9.    Copy the dump file to Slave DB server   10.  Startup the Slave by using option --skip-slave      /usr/local/mysql-5.0.22/bin/mysqld_safe --user=user --skip-slave&   11.  Restore the dump file on Slave DB server      mysql –u user dbname < dbname_dump.db   12.  Stop the Slave database by giving the command      mysqladmin shutdown   13.  Configure the /etc/my.cnf file on the Slave database server [mysqld] server-id=2 replicate-ignore-table = dbname.tablename   14.  Start the Slave Mysql Server with 'replicate-do-db=DB name' option.      /usr/local/mysql-5.0.22/bin/mysqld_safe --user=user --replicate-do-db=dbname --skip-slave   15.  Configure the settings at Slave server for Master host name, log filename and position within the log file as shown in Step 6 above Use Change Master statement in the MySQL session mysql> CHANGE MASTER TO MASTER_HOST='<master_host_name>', MASTER_USER='<replication_user_name>', MASTER_PASSWORD='<replication_password>', MASTER_LOG_FILE='<recorded_log_file_name>', MASTER_LOG_POS=<recorded_log_position>;   16.  On Slave Servers mysql prompt give the following command: a.     mysql > START SLAVE; b.    mysql > SHOW SLAVE STATUS;         Note: To stop slave for backup or any other activity you can use the following command on the Slave Servers mysql prompt: mysql> STOP SLAVE     Refer following links for more information on MySQL DB Replication: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/replication-options.html http://crazytoon.com/2008/04/21/mysql-replication-replicate-by-choice/ http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/mysqldump.html

  Read the article

• Wpf: Why is WriteableBitmap getting slower?

  - by fritz

  There is a simple MSDN example about WriteableBitmap. It shows how to draw a freehand line with the cursor by just updating one pixel when the mouse is pressed and is moving over a WPF -Image Control. writeableBitmap.Lock(); (...set the writeableBitmap.BackBuffers pixel value...) writeableBitmap.AddDirtyRect(new Int32Rect(column, row, 1, 1)); writeableBitmap.Unlock(); Now I'm trying to understand the following behaviour when moving the mouse pointer very fast: If the image/bitmap size is relatively small e.g. 800:600 pixel, then the last drawn pixel is always "synchronized" with the mouse pointers position, i.e. there is no delay, very fast reaction on mouse movements. But if the bitmap gets larger e.g. 1300:1050 pixel, you can notice a delay, the last drawn pixel always appear a bit delayed behind the moving mouse pointer. So as in both cases only one pixel gets updated with "AddDirtyRect", the reaction speed should be independent from the bitmap size!? But it seems that Writeablebitmap gets slower when it's size gets larger. Or does the whole bitmap somehow get transferred to the graphic device on every writeableBitmap.Unlock(); call , and not only the rectangle area speficied in the AddDirtyRect method? fritz

  Read the article

• Java Memory Model: reordering and concurrent locks

  - by Steffen Heil

  Hi The java meomry model mandates that synchronize blocks that synchronize on the same monitor enforce a before-after-realtion on the variables modified within those blocks. Example: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { x = true; } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { System.out.println( x ); } In this case it is garanteed that thread B will see x==true as long as thread A already passed that synchronized-block. Now I am in the process to rewrite lots of code to use the more flexible (and said to be faster) locks in java.util.concurrent, especially the ReentrantReadWriteLock. So the example looks like this: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { lock.writeLock().lock(); x = true; lock.writeLock().unlock(); } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { lock.readLock().lock(); System.out.println( x ); lock.readLock().unlock(); } However, I have not seen any hints within the memory model specification that such locks also imply the nessessary ordering. Looking into the implementation it seems to rely on the access to volatile variables inside AbstractQueuedSynchronizer (for the sun implementation at least). However this is not part of any specification and moreover access to non-volatile variables is not really condsidered covered by the memory barrier given by these variables, is it? So, here are my questions: Is it safe to assume the same ordering as with the "old" synchronized blocks? Is this documented somewhere? Is accessing any volatile variable a memory barrier for any other variable? Regards, Steffen

  Read the article

• Modify Executing Jar file

  - by pinkynobrain

  Hello Stack Overflow friends. I have a simple problem which i fear doesnt have a simple solution and i need advice as to how to proceed. I am developing a java application packaged as and executable JAR but it requires to modify some of its JAR file contents during execution. At this stage i hit a problem because some OS lock the file preventing writes to it. It is essential that the user sees an updated version of the jar file by the time the application exits allthough i can be pretty flexible as to how to achieve this. A clean and efficient solution is obviously prefereable but portability is the only hard requirement. The following are three approaches i can see to solving the problem, feel free to comment on them or suggest others. Tell Java to unlock the JAR file for writing(this doesnt seem possible but it would be the easyest solution) Copy the executable class files to a tempory file on application startup, use a class loader to load these files and unload the ones from the initial JAR file.(Not had much experience with the classloaders but hopefully the JVM would then be smart enough to realize that the original JAR is nolonger in use and so unlock it) Put a Second executable JAR File inside the First, on startup extract the inner jar to e temporaryfile, invoke a new java process and pass it the location of the Outer JAR, first process exits, second process modifys the Outer jar unincumbered.(This will work but im not sure there is a platform independant way of one java app invoking another) I know this is a weird question but any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Boost::thread mutex issue: Try to lock, access violation

  - by user1419305

  I am currently learning how to multithread with c++, and for that im using boost::thread. I'm using it for a simple gameengine, running three threads. Two of the threads are reading and writing to the same variables, which are stored inside something i call PrimitiveObjects, basicly balls, plates, boxes etc. But i cant really get it to work, i think the problem is that the two threads are trying to access the same memorylocation at the same time, i have tried to avoid this using mutex locks, but for now im having no luck, this works some times, but if i spam it, i end up with this exception: First-chance exception at 0x00cbfef9 in TTTTT.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xdddddded. Unhandled exception at 0x77d315de in TTTTT.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xdddddded. These are the functions inside the object that im using for this, and the debugger is also blaming them for the exception. void PrimitiveObj::setPos(glm::vec3 in){ boost::mutex mDisposingMutex; boost::try_mutex::scoped_try_lock lock(mDisposingMutex); if ( lock) { position = in; boost::try_mutex::scoped_try_lock unlock(mDisposingMutex); } } glm::vec3 PrimitiveObj::getPos(){ boost::mutex myMutex; boost::try_mutex::scoped_try_lock lock(myMutex); if ( lock) { glm::vec3 curPos = position; boost::try_mutex::scoped_try_lock unlock(myMutex); return curPos; } return glm::vec3(0,0,0); } Any ideas?

  Read the article

• In app purchase on iphone.: How to receive your available products *before* someone may be able to b

  - by Thorsten S.

  Currently I am loading my supported products from a plist and after that I send a SKProductsRequest to guarantee that my SKProducts are still valid. So I set up the request, start it and get the response in: (void)productsRequest:(SKProductsRequest *)request didReceiveResponse:(SKProductsResponse *)response Now, so far all functions correctly. Problem: From calling the request until receiving the response it may last several seconds. Until that my app is already loaded and the user may be able to choose and buy a product. But because no products have been received, the available products are not in sync with the validated products - unlikely, but possible error. So my idea is to wait until the data is loaded and only continue when the list is validated. (Just a few seconds waiting...). I have a singleton instance managing all products. + (MyClass *) sharedInstance { if (!sharedInstance) sharedInstance = [MyClass new]; // Now wait until we have our data [condition lock]; while (noEntriesYet) // is yes at begin [condition wait]; [condition unlock]; return sharedInstance; } - productsRequest: didReceiveResponse: { [condition lock]; // I have my data noEntriesYet = false; [condition signal]; [condition unlock]; } Problem: The app freezes. Everything works fine if didReceiveResponse is completed before the sharedInstance is queried. There are different threads, the lock is working if wait is reached during didReceiveResponse, everything fine. But if not, didReceiveResponse is never called even if the request was sent. The lock is released, everything looks ok. I have tried to send the product request in a separate NSThread, with NSOperationQueue...without avail. Why ? What is happening ? How to solve the problem ?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to prevent out-of-order execution by using single volatile

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  By referring article, it is using a pair of volatile to prevent out-of-order execution. I was wondering, is it possible to prevent it using single volatile? void fun_by_thread_1() { this.isNuclearFactory = true; this.factory = new NuclearFactory(); } void fun_by_thread_2() { Factory _factory = this.factory; if (this.isNuclearFactory) { // Do not operate nuclear factory!!! return; } // If out-of-order execution happens, _factory might // be NuclearFactory instance. _factory.operate(); } Factory factory = new FoodFactory(); volatile boolean isNuclearFactory = false; The reason I ask, is because I have a single guard flag (similar to isNuclearFactory flag), to guard against multiple variables (similar to many Factory). I do not wish to mark all the Factory as volatile. Or, shall I fall into the following solution? void fun_by_thread_1() { try { writer.lock(); this.isNuclearFactory = true; this.factory = new NuclearFactory(); } finally { writer.unlock(); } } void fun_by_thread_2() { try { reader.lock(); Factory _factory = this.factory; if (this.isNuclearFactory) { // Do not operate nuclear factory!!! return; } } finally { reader.unlock(); } _factory.operate(); } Factory factory = new FoodFactory(); boolean isNuclearFactory = false; P/S: I know instanceof. Factory is just an example to demonstrate of out-of-order problem.

  Read the article

• Impossible to be const-correct when combining data and it's lock?

  - by Graeme

  I've been looking at ways to combine a piece of data which will be accessed by multiple threads alongside the lock provisioned for thread-safety. I think I've got to a point where I don't think its possible to do this whilst maintaining const-correctness. Take the following class for example: template <typename TType, typename TMutex> class basic_lockable_type { public: typedef TMutex lock_type; public: template <typename... TArgs> explicit basic_lockable_type(TArgs&&... args) : TType(std::forward<TArgs...>(args)...) {} TType& data() { return data_; } const TType& data() const { return data_; } void lock() { mutex_.lock(); } void unlock() { mutex_.unlock(); } private: TType data_; mutable TMutex mutex_; }; typedef basic_lockable_type<std::vector<int>, std::mutex> vector_with_lock; In this I try to combine the data and lock, marking mutex_ as mutable. Unfortunately this isn't enough as I see it because when used, vector_with_lock would have to be marked as mutable in order for a read operation to be performed from a const function which isn't entirely correct (data_ should be mutable from a const). void print_values() const { std::lock_guard<vector_with_lock>(values_); for(const int val : values_) { std::cout << val << std::endl; } } vector_with_lock values_; Can anyone see anyway around this such that const-correctness is maintained whilst combining data and lock? Also, have I made any incorrect assumptions here?

  Read the article

• MFC/CCriticalSection: Simple lock situation hangs

  - by raph.amiard

  I have to program a simple threaded program with MFC/C++ for a uni assignment. I have a simple scenario in wich i have a worked thread which executes a function along the lines of : UINT createSchedules(LPVOID param) { genProgThreadVal* v = (genProgThreadVal*) param; // v->searcherLock is of type CcriticalSection* while(1) { if(v->searcherLock->Lock()) { //do the stuff, access shared object , exit clause etc.. v->searcherLock->Unlock(); } } PostMessage(v->hwnd, WM_USER_THREAD_FINISHED , 0,0); delete v; return 0; } In my main UI class, i have a CListControl that i want to be able to access the shared object (of type std::List). Hence the locking stuff. So this CList has an handler function looking like this : void Ccreationprogramme::OnLvnItemchangedList5(NMHDR *pNMHDR, LRESULT *pResult) { LPNMLISTVIEW pNMLV = reinterpret_cast<LPNMLISTVIEW>(pNMHDR); if((pNMLV->uChanged & LVIF_STATE) && (pNMLV->uNewState & LVNI_SELECTED)) { searcherLock.Lock(); // do the stuff on shared object searcherLock.Unlock(); // do some more stuff } *pResult = 0; } The searcherLock in both function is the same object. The worker thread function is passed a pointer to the CCriticalSection object, which is a member of my dialog class. Everything works but, as soon as i do click on my list, and so triggers the handler function, the whole program hangs indefinitely.I tried using a Cmutex. I tried using a CSingleLock wrapping over the critical section object, and none of this has worked. What am i missing ?

  Read the article

• Thread mutex behaviour

  - by Alberteddu

  Hi there, I'm learning C. I'm writing an application with multiple threads; I know that when a variable is shared between two or more threads, it is better to lock/unlock using a mutex to avoid deadlock and inconsistency of variables. This is very clear when I want to change or view one variable. int i = 0; /** Global */ static pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; /** Thread 1. */ pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); i++; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); /** Thread 2. */ pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); i++; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); This is correct, I think. The variable i, at the end of the executions, contains the integer 2. Anyway, there are some situations in which I don't know exactly where to put the two function calls. For example, suppose you have a function obtain(), which returns a global variable. I need to call that function from within the two threads. I have also two other threads that call the function set(), defined with a few arguments; this function will set the same global variable. The two functions are necessary when you need to do something before getting/setting the var. /** (0) */ /** Thread 1, or 2, or 3... */ if(obtain() == something) { if(obtain() == somethingElse) { // Do this, sometimes obtain() and sometimes set(random number) (1) } else { // Do that, just obtain(). (2) } } else { // Do this and do that (3) // If # of thread * 3 > 10, then set(3*10) For example. (4) } /** (5) */ Where I have to lock, and where I have to unlock? The situation can be, I think, even more complex. I will appreciate an exhaustive answer. Thank you in advance. —Alberto

  Read the article

• Write-Only Reference in C++?

  - by Robert Mason

  Is there a way to code a write-only reference to an object? For example, suppose there was a mutex class: template <class T> class mutex { protected: T _data; public: mutex(); void lock(); //locks the mutex void unlock(); //unlocks the mutex T& data(); //returns a reference to the data, or throws an exception if lock is unowned }; Is there a way to guarantee that one couldn't do this: mutex<type> foo; T& ref; foo.lock(); ref = foo.data(); foo.unlock(); //I have a unguarded reference to foo now On the other hand, is it even worth it? I know that some people assume that programmers won't deliberately clobber the system, but then, why do we have private variables in the first place, eh? It'd be nice to just say it's "Undefined Behavior", but that just seems a little bit too insecure.

  Read the article

• Why does java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue use 'while' loops instead of 'if' around calls to

  - by theFunkyEngineer

  I have been playing with my own version of this, using 'if', and all seems to be working fine. Of course this will break down horribly if signalAll() is used instead of signal(), but if only one thread at a time is notified, how can this go wrong? Their code here - check out the put() and take() methods; a simpler and more-to-the-point implementation can be seen at the top of the JavaDoc for Condition. Relevant portion of my implementation below. public Object get() { lock.lock(); try { if( items.size() < 1 ) hasItems.await(); Object poppedValue = items.getLast(); items.removeLast(); hasSpace.signal(); return poppedValue; } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); return null; } finally { lock.unlock(); } } public void put(Object item) { lock.lock(); try { if( items.size() >= capacity ) hasSpace.await(); items.addFirst(item); hasItems.signal(); return; } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { lock.unlock(); } } P.S. I know that generally, particularly in lib classes like this, one should let the exceptions percolate up.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >