Labview SignalExpress (2.0) Dual-core capable?

I've read that the full-blown Labview is fully multithreaded and can take full advantage of multicore, can SignalExpress? The machine I am evaluating on is a rather aged P4 (2.0 GHz I believe) and I'm finding my task to be rather CPU intensive, so I will probably put SignalExpress on a Core2 Duo machine if we purchase the package.

Yes, because LabVIEW SignalExpress is built on the same LabVIEW technology, all of your projects automatically take advantage of muticore architectures.
Regards,
Matt F
Keep up to date on the latest PXI news at twitter.com/pxi

Similar Messages

Labview 7.1 and Dual Core Processors

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has encountered any problems using Labview
7.1 and the newer dual-core processors. I have a Dell Dimension DXPO51,
2.8 GHz Pentium D with 1 GB ram. There is NO virus software or any
other non-essential programs running in the background. The computer is
totally dedicated to controlling a machine.
Other NI boards installed: PCI-6221 for analog inputs, PCI-6602 for
reading encoders, PCI-7352 Motion Control board to control 2 motors.
The problem:
Periodically when I start my program, it locks up and I get the "Tell
Microsoft about this problem..." screen. After it exits out of Labview
and I restart, the Run arrow is not broken but the program will not run
until I make a change on the block diagram. Then I can run again.
Doesn't happen all the time, doesn't happen after running after a
certain amount of time, doesn't happen after a particular change is
made (i.e. adding case statements, adding an event, etc.). In other
words, totally random.
I have tried totally uninstalling ALL National Instruments software,
including cleaning the registry, and re-installing everything. Didn't
help.
The machine will be shipping with the executable file only but I'm still leary of problems arising due to this issue.
Any help or suggestions of things to try would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Teri

Hi Teri,
I've seen scattered reports of users having trouble with dual-processor
machines with earlier versions of LabVIEW, though I'm not aware of
verified solutions in those cases. The dual-processor operation
should be completely transparent to LabVIEW, although I know XP has had
some difficulties in providing the abstraction correctly. A
workaround that has been successful in the past is to set the processor
affinity for LabVIEW to a single processor. This should eliminate
the dual-processor nature of the system from consideration. If
the problem still recurs after that, then the issue stems from another
source and we can investigate further. Does it show this behavior
with any program (or just by opening the LabVIEW environment)?
How often does this occur (10%, 50% of the time)?
Cheers,
Matt Pollock
National Instruments

Multithreaded application with labview IMAQ & WinXP on Dual Core Processor

Hi all,
I am working on a multi-threaded vision application on a
PC with the latest Core 2 Duo processor. I have image data coming over
two TCP sockets, and image processing using the IMAQ Vision libraries.
I have managed to parallelize the image processing, TCP communication, and display functions.
I
have 2 Image processing loops, 2 TCP loops (one for each socket), a UI
loop, and a display loop. Inter-loop communication is via 2 Q's and a
few notifiers.
The image processing and TCP VI's are all re-entrant. The TCP and Image processing VI's are on different threads.
I tried playing around with changing priorities on the VI's but it made things a bit worse.
My questions are:
1 Are dll calls to the IMAQ dll's re-entrant? (probably not?)
2 Can these dll calls be made re-entrant? Would it make a difference?
3 Any way to set two different instances of the same
re-entrant VI on the diagram on DIFFERENT threads?
3 Any other ways I can improve performance?
Thanks for any insights!
Neville.

Hi Neville,
If you doing image processing, then you are probably using VIs that call the NIVision DLL. These calls are actually reentrant by default (calls made to the IMAQ DLL are also reentrant). Having said that, remember that the image processing VIs, along with most VIs in the vi.lib folder, are not reentrant, making the DLL calls effectively non reentrant as well. The reason for this is that, unless a VI takes a considerable amout of time to execute, running it as reentrant will often slow down performance due to the overhead involved in managing parallel execution. I'm not sure if you have already tried this, but you may find that your program will run faster if you set your image processing VIs to be non reentrant. I do not know of a way to run multiple instances of the same reentrant VI on different threads, but I will look into it, and I will let you know if I find something. Another option would be to create copies of the VIs so that the functionality of each one is identical, but you are actually calling different .vi files.
In general, it seems like the architecture of your program is very optimized with the parallel loops, queues, and notifiers that you are using. I would recommend trying out non reentrant VIs to see if this speeds things up. Please let me know if this is helpful.
Chris
Applicatoins Engineer
National Instruments

Error while runing diadem asynchronous script from labview on dual core processor

Urgent need of some help / advice here!
Single core runs fine... dual core produces error: Error in <XYaxis.vbs> (line: 17, column: 1): Error while opening object. The object currently open has no subobjects. Forgotten ObjClose?
The main software built in labview used for daq and analysis generates a PDF report on completion of a test, utilising diadem. For this I use the diadem express vi in labview to generate a multi page report, whereby I use for loop to iterate an array of channels for each page. This for loop has a shift register too. After each page I run a script to adjust a few parameters like linear/log, begin/end and line thickness using the diadem connectivity tookit. See script below:
Call GraphObjOpen("2D-Axis1")
Call GraphObjOpen("2DXAxis8_1")
D2AxisXDivMode = "linear"
D2AxisXScaleType = "begin/end manual"
D2AxisXBegin = 20
D2AxisXEnd = 20000
Call GraphObjClose("2DXAxis8_1")
Call GraphObjOpen("2DYAxis8_1")
D2AxisYDivMode = "linear"
D2AxisYScaleType = "complete automatic"
D2AxisYBegin = 0
D2AxisYEnd = 0
Call GraphObjClose("2DYAxis8_1")
FOR c = 1 TO CurveNoMax
If D2CurveObj(c) = "" Then Exit For ' c
Call GraphObjOpen(D2CurveObj(c))
D2CurveLineWidth = 0.75
Call GraphObjClose(D2CurveObj(c))
NEXT ' c
Call GraphObjClose("2D-Axis1")
There is also a screenshot of the vi: (script file is generated by the Dscript vi and saved to disk. then path is passed to the diadem script vi.)
What I find is, after the first report page is complete in diadem the second page ALWAYS shows the error as shown at the top. However, on my P4 laptop with single core (no hyperthreading) its runs FINE EVERY TIME with any given number of channels/pages in the report.
My current chain of thought is that the superfast dual core is doing something in parallel therefore not waiting for the previous page to complete or finish closing its object!? however, in my for loop I use a shift register as named before, surely this kind of loop cannot be divided over more cores/parallel threads? as it has to wait for the response of the previous.!?!? Im running LV 8.6 on WinXP for this project and I didnt even think multicore processing for for loops is included in this version.
The other thing is... this script used to run fine on the dual core until I added the last part that uses a for loop to get every line of the graph to be the thinkness I need. Is this for loop the culprit? Can I stop it from executing over multiple cores/threads? I read a post saying that from diadem 8 there was multi core support. this triggered my doubt
As always any comments are most appreciated
AL
:. LV2010 SP1 ... W7 .:
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi Al,
I have a theory, but only you can test it. In your VI screenshot, you have the boolean input for the DIAdem Execute Script.vi set to asynchronous=TRUE. My theory says that if you change that boolean (and all others like it) to asynchrous=FALSE that the error will not occur on the multicore computer. The other thing you could try would be to consolidate all REPORT commands that pertain to one REPORT page into a single ActiveX call to DIAdem. In the screenshot below you have at least 2 separate VIs calling DIAdem, so that's at least 2 separate ActiveX calls for one REPORT sheet.
Here's what I think is going on. On a multicore computer there is the potential for different ActiveX commands from LV to DIAdem to execute on different cores, which may result in a timing problem on the DIAdem side. DIAdem 11.x and earlier runs exclusively on 1 CPU, so the incoming ActiveX commands should be sequenced correctly by DIAdem's ActiveX to-do list. Theoretically DIAdem should serialize all the incoming ActiveX commands (regardless of which CPU processed them) in the order that they arrived at the DIAdem ActiveX server(s). On the sending side, LabVIEW's dataflow execution should theoretically guarantee that all the ActiveX requests are being sent in the correct order. But it is theoretically possible that the operating system's ActiveX processing queue might not send all the ActiveX commands to DIAdem in the order that it receives them from LabVIEW-- IF YOU'VE SELECTED ASYNCHRONOUS PROCESSING.
See if these clues help,
Brad Turpin
DIAdem Product Support Engineer
National Instruments

Intels Dual-Core technology causes Blue-Screen in LabVIEW 7.1 on Windows XP SP2

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
last month we've bought a new Notebook with Intel's Dual-Core technology. After installation of LabVIEW 7.1 the system sometimes quit with a blue-screen. The former notebook didn't have this problem.
Is there a fix-pack or service-pack that correct this problem?
Yours
DocDOS aka Timo

DocDOS wrote:
After installation of LabVIEW 7.1 the system sometimes quit with a blue-screen.
Does it blue-screen only when running LabVIEW or does it do that randomly, but it never happened before you installed LabVIEW?
What is the exact message on the blue screen?
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

Should I go with a dual core or quad core MacBook?

Hi all,
I am going to be a college student this fall majoring in a science related field. My first question is what processor I should go with. I am looking at either a 13" MBP with a dual core i7 and 8 GB of RAM (750GB HD), 13" MBP w/ a dual core i5, 8GB RAM and 500GB HD, or a 15" quad core i7 with 8GB RAM and 500 GB HD. I plan on upgrading to a SSD once prices come down in a few years and would like to stick with the MBP without Retina Display so that I can upgrade RAM and HD later on.
Will I see a noticeable difference between dual core i5 and i7? From what I have seen, it has not been much of a difference. I only plan to do light Photoshop and doubt I will do any video editing or even 3D modelling for the most part. This will mainly be used for research (web), streaming, and Office. I know that the i5 is more than capable of all of that, but I am looking to make this machine last 4+ years at least. That is why I am considering jumping up to the 15" MBP just to get the quad core and ensure that I will have a longer lasting machine.
Most of the time the laptop will be travelling around, but I will also be plugging this into a Thunderbolt Display for more screen space.
Let me know what you all think! Right now, I am leaning towards the 13" MBP with dual core i7, but this is subject to change. Will it last throughout college?
Thanks,
Sean

seanbrownie wrote:
Screen size set aside since I plan on using a TBD most of the time,
Then you want the more powerful graphics of the 15" with it's dedicated GPU to better/faster drive the external display as it's larger, and larger displays pumps more pixels so you also need the better cooling of the 15"
would adding more RAM solve the OS X upgrade issues over time?
Yes, but more RAM isn't a cure all, processors and graphics also has to be powerful to last longer.
RAM allows one to do more things at the same time, and gives a performance boot with programs with larger files it's working on (like large Photoshop and video files)
Plus, would upgrading the HD to SSD help in making the jump to say OS X 10.11, 10.12 down the road easier?
Not that much really, with the non-Retina 15" you can put in a 1TB SSD when the prices come down further
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%2060041492 0&IsNodeId=1&name=513GB%20-%201TB
It would be nice to save a little on the screen size since I won't be able to utilize the 15" to its maximum potential when I'm working at my desk.
Your on the wrong platform if your looking to save money.
If you compare specs and performance of the hardware Apple offers for sale and equivilent i5/dual cores with Intel HD graphics, you'll find for $1500 buys a Mac and for $400 buys the same in a Windows PC.
Really the best value comes with the 15" as if your in that pro market for such a machine you might as well get OS X with it as PC's cost about the same in that range.
The really best value is a Windows 7 tower, that way it's parts are all upgradable and can last a decade or more on one Widnows OS version.
Several of my friends think I'm crazy spending $10,000 on Mac's in 10 years, they are still on their XP towers and haven't paid much more than $2000 over that same time.
Of course now XP is dead and they have to upgrade to Windows 7 towers, but they really get good value out of their boxes.
Mac's are not for those tight on a budget, I don't advise. A Windows machine will do the job for most people
Perhaps a Windows 3D gaming tower and a iPad?

How to use Real time execution trace toolkit with Dual-core processor??

hi there
the situation as follows:
i have a computer (PC and Laptop) types with Dual-core processors, and am trying to do simulation using Multi-core technology and based on different simulation scenarios...starting from sequantial processing,.......Piple lining processing strategy. so that i can differentiate the time delay between those types of processing based on (Using 1 processor then dual-core processor Computers)
my question is: As i read through Ni's white papers i saw many notes refer to Real-time execution trace toolkit to investigate the (processing-time , etc) of multi-core processors in processing diffenent algorithms. My algorithms are to be run on 1 computer with dual-core processor BUT, not in real time environments, that is ( No hardware to be connected to my pc) only algorithms running on my pc....
So, is it possible to use Real time execution trace toolkit or anyother tools in LabVIEW to show processing-delays and/or anyother timing critical issues without using my application for real- time hardware.???
in other words: how to use Real time execution trace toolkit in non-hardware and/or real-time scenarios???
please help me in this.
Any suggestion, comments, feedback.....is absolutely highly appreciated
thanks a lot in advance
Labview Lover

Hey,
The Realtime Execution Trace Toolkit only works for NI RT Targets.
But you can use the Desktop Execution Trace Toolkit, just search for it under ni.com.
Christian

1.4GHz dual-core (Air) vs 2.4GHz dual-core (Pro)

Hi all!
Is there a way to quantify the difference in processing power between the 1.4GHz dual-core in the new 13 inch Macbook Air and the 2.4GHz dual-core in the 13 inch Macbook Pro?
How would you all explain the difference in power and capability?
Thanks for any input!

skyyame,
performance benchmarks can be used to quantify the difference in processing power, but if the benchmarks don’t closely resemble your typical tasks, then they might not be relevant for you.
If you’re trying to make a purchasing decision between two particular Macs, what would you like to do with whichever one you do purchase?

Redundant Supervisors in a Dual-Core Catalyst 6500 network

Read the PDF doc called:
Designing a Campus Network for High Availability.
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns432/c649/cdccont_0900aecd801a8a2d.pdf
It essentially recommends that dual supervisors only be used in SPOF points - not in dual-distribution or dual-core switches.
The rationale is that a layer three routing protocol convergence (EIGRP for instance) only takes 60-200ms, but a supervisor failover using NSF and SSO takes up to 3 seconds.
In practice, I almost always see dual supervisors recommended in the core (and that's what I've recommended as well).
I can see keeping dual supervisors in the core because the customer may place a higher value on redundant hardware capability than an up to three second convergence, but I'd like to hear other rationales why dual supervisors should be used in a redundant core given the definite speed advantage of routing protco convergence over convergence following NSF/SSO failover.
Thanks,

In a completely clean textbook design where the cores are mirrors of each other and only provide transit between distribuition layers, NO, dual sups are not needed and will only slow convergence as the document indicates.
However, in some live environments this is not always the case, where the textbook does not reflect reality. One core switch can have a configuration or connection that the other core cannot backup. As much as people try to keep their cores clean and symetrical, a fast growing and underfunded network can quickly get messy with one-offs and bandaids that get forgotten about a few months later. In situations like these, having dual sups in the core provides the peace of mind and assurance that 3 seconds can buy (if you can afford it).
Please rate this post.
Thanks,
Brad

I am lookinat buying an Aspire Netbook with 4 gig ram, dual core amd c70 processor and windows 8, wi

am looking at buying an Aspire Netbook with 4 gig ram, dual core amd c70 processor and windows 8, will it run my cs5 suite

Mark,
Adobe generally requires a minimum CPU clock speed of 2.0 GHz or higher in order to run CS5 or higher. Unfortunately, the AMD C70 CPU in that netbook operates at only 1.0 GHz, which is far below Adobe's minimum requirement. In addition, even if it did run Premiere Pro CS5, performance will be excruciatingly slow, not only due to the extremely weak CPU, but also due to the complete lack of a discrete GPU with CUDA capability. As such, that system, if it even runs Premiere Pro CS5 at all, would be at least 80 to 100 times slower (in terms of the Relative Performance Index (RPI) in Bill Gehrke's and Hard Millaard's PPBM5 tests) than even a mediocre quad-core desktop PC, let alone a fast overclocked i7 monster PC.

HT5639 why can i no longer install windows 8 on my 2011 macbook (dual core).

I just recently had to clean off my macbook and reinstall everything. I was successfully running Windows 8 in boot camp. However, when the new bootcamp 5 came it it is telling me that I cannot install Windows 8. I have an early 2011 MacBook Pro (dual core)
Why? It ran great before!!! Why all of the sudden are you stopping me?!?!?

I have a MacBook Pro 13-inch, Early 2011, and have upgraded to OS X 10.8.3. I attempted to install Windows 8 via the "Boot Camp Assistant" utility application, and received the "Your Mac only supports Windows 7" message when attempting to "download the latest Window support software from Apple."
According to this Apple support article, the early 2011 13-inch MacBook Pro should be capable of running Windows 8 (64-bit) with Boot Camp 5: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5634
Apparently this is a glitch in the Boot Camp Assistant, as I've read of it affecting even newer MacBooks. With the "Your Mac only supports Windows 7" message, I was uncertain that Boot Camp Assistant would download the correct set of drivers for use with Windows 8. Instead I went to this page: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1638 and downloaded the Boot Camp Support Software there. I followed the directions to copy the contents of the downloaded .zip file to the USB flash drive. Then I used Boot Camp Assistant to install Windows 8 after deselecting the "Download the latest Window support software from Apple" option. After Windows 8 was installed and opened then I opened the Boot Camp folder on the USB drive and double clicked on "setup.exe". Windows 8 has since performed flawlessly on my MacBook Pro, so I believe this to be a suitable work around. Hopefully Apple will soon correct the flaw in the Boot Camp Assistant.

Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics

Hi all,
I’m trying to decide between a 2012 quad core 2.3GHz i7 and a 2014 dual core 2.6GHz i5. Yes, I wish they had a 2014 quad core Haswell with upgradeable RAM and a second HD bay like the 2012, plus a faster clock speed and Iris Pro graphics, but they don’t.
The main differences I see are listed below. I didn’t list the soldered on RAM in the 2014 because I’d be ordering it maxed out with 16GB of RAM. The same with the 2012; I’d be buying and installing 16GB of RAM. So in that respect, they’re even. And price comes out about the same, $900.
             2012 Quad 2.3 i7              vs        2014 Dual 2.6 i5
2012 Ivy Bridge quad      vs        2014 Haswell dual with slightly faster single core scores
Intel 4000 graphics         vs        Iris (5100)
FireWire                          vs        2nd ThunderBolt 2 port
Mavericks capable           vs        Yosemite
802.11n Wi-Fi                 vs        ac
I’m decided on 3-4-5. My main questions deal with cores and graphics.
Question 1 is about cores. I’ve read from some people on other sites that for my low level use (email, MS Office, browsing, Youtube) I won’t even be accessing the extra cores on the quad, and that the unmaxed dual cores with a faster clock speed and Haswell CPU should actually work faster in my situation. So that’s my question. Is that true? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (the quad core should still be “unnecessary” in the next 5 years or so, given my usage)?
Question 2 is about the graphics. I’ve read wildly different estimates as to how much faster Iris is than the 4000 (anywhere from about 10% to 90%). Anyone know how much difference I’m likely to see between the two, given my usage? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (higher graphics intensive apps playing that much better on Iris compared to 4000, again, given my usage)?
I’m trying to buy for now, but I tend to keep my Macs for 6-7 years, so I’m also trying to look at the future.
Any benchmarks, facts or educated opinions are welcome.
Thanks!

Kappy wrote:
All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.
Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.
But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.
Your comments on graphics pretty much confirm the majority of what I've been reading on other sites.
The conflict is with cores. About half the people are saying for low CPU intensive tasks 4 cores are totally unnecessary, while the other half says they'll make things faster no what the task (one thing all seem to have in common is they're totally against the 2014s).
So it seems I'm left with the decision between faster performance vs better graphics.
I appreciate your input.

Will the optional i7 dual-core do 4-core "hyperthreading"?

Will the i7 dual-core -- that's available as an option on the 2011 Mini -- utilize "hyperthreading" and look like a 4-core CPU to OS X ? That's one of the big advantages of a latest-edition i7 over an i5, and for some software it can mean quite a speedup, and well worth the extra bucks, if it works on the new Mini

John, thanks for your helpful insight. For reasons of portability (and ports!!!), I need to use the Mini for some heavy-duty but not cutting-edge things -- like running FCPro (7, eventually X when they get it together acceptably), Quark, PShop, etc. The need for speed is important, but portability is the big factor here, since this Mac will get moved to new locations at least once each day and must to be up and running quickly and reliably.
The Mini plus a big screen (27" Samsung) and everything else it needs to roar will fit into a slim, surprisingly light case. The Mini needs a nearby AC plug since it doesn't have a battery, but even that can be dealt with in rare circumstances. I have two good friends who are happily running Snow Leopard on their 2011 Minis with no problems, so I know that OS X 10.6 is a "go."
My main need is to get reasonable results out of Final Cut Pro and good results out of Photoshop. The 2011 Mini's small form factor, very high portability, its (optional) acceptably capable CPU and GPU, combined with the ability to run sizeable display screens and the easier (and fuller) port choices including Firewire and ThunderBolt external drives and access to my audio and video peripherals -- vs. the MacBook Pro's more limited choice of ports (the 17" Pro is not an option because size is a constraint, here) makes the Mini look interesting, even attractive!
Also, the built-in screen for the MacBook Pro is not much of an advantage for me; I would seldom use it.
This all leaves me thinking a heretical thought: the new 2011 Mini, with Snow Leopard installed and 8 Gigs or (soon) 16 Gigs of RAM, looks like it could let me slip through the keyhole and have a howler if not a screamer -- if I accept a few compromises! I'd love to have the 4-core i7 and the Radeon graphics, but, as you know, that combo isn't an available option in the Build-to-Order options for the Mini. The full-size Pro desktop box is totally unmanageable because of bulk and weight.
So, I said all of that to ask you: can you add any thoughts or hot hints regarding what I just said -- downsides, upsides, etc.?? Anyone else?

The difference between Intel core I7 and dual core

I have a 2.7 ghz Intel Core I7 macbook, early 2011. Can someone tell me the difference between this machine and the new macbooks, 2.4 or 2.6 ghz, dual core?
Thanks!

Benchmarks:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2057932/lab-tested-iris-graphics-provide-a-boost -to-new-13-inch-retina-macbook-pro.html

Can you down load itunes to amd athlon(tm) 64 x2 dual core processor 3800

Can you download itunes to a computer with amd athlon(tm) 64 x2 dual core processor 3800+

Can you download itunes to a computer with amd athlon(tm) 64 x2 dual core processor 3800+

Labview SignalExpress (2.0) Dual-core capable?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for