Loop rate on my RT system not faster than 1kHz

Hi,
I have a PXI5404 frequency generator card without memory. So I tried to
program the memory list on my own with while-loop. The value for
the frequency card is updated with an extern digital signal. But it
sems that my loop doesn't run faster thn 1ms. Is there any solution?
I have a PXI system with an PXI 8176 Controller, an 6259 M-series card, a PXI 6723 analog out card and the frequency card.
Thanks for your help
Tim
Attachments:
Loop.vi ‏90 KB

Thanks for the answer.
In deed, I was able to change my frequency faster, down to 200 microseconds. First I gave out a frequency of 20kHz, switched to 3 MHz for 200 µs and back to 20 kHz. So, the card can read the frequency faster, but after I switched back to 20 kHz, the frequency isn't updated any more. The card is missing one trigger. Could it be faster to communicate directly with the analog devices chip un the card via some hardware addresses?
Thanks
Tim

Similar Messages

Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

My Mac Pro boot OS is on a 150 Gb striped raid made from outer partitions on two 1Tb drives in bays 1 and 2. There is 95 Gb free on the boot. 8 Gb RAM.
My normal scratch is on a dedicated 150 Gb striped raid made from the outer partitions of the 1Tb drives in bays 3 and 4.
I ran the Retouche artists Photoshop speed test with the scratch on the dedicated separate scratch, and on the boot volume.
The results were:
Average time of several runs with dedicated scratch was 45.5 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was 43.9 seconds.
Since I was expecting the dedicated scratch to be faster I was a bit surprised so I repeated the exercise on my MacBook Pro (1.83 MHz, 2 Gb RAM). Normal scratch is the boot volume which a 5400 rpm 500 Gb Samsung with 150 Gb free, no partitions. For this exercise, I connected an eSATA via an express card to provide a dedicated scratch alternative.
Average time with dedicated separate scratch was 152 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was also 152 seconds.
All Retouche Tests were done with 40 history states and 4 cache levels, which results in about 7Gb of scratch being used. On both machines Quickbench shows the scratch as just a few percent faster than the boot.
I repeated the Mac Pro tests with the test file located on different drives, including the boot and the scratch, but there were no significant differences.
What has happened to the standard advice about dedicated scratch for Photoshop?
Any thoughts ? (other than that I have too much time on my hands!)
Mike

Important to note the buffer on those drives are the all 32MB or are some 16MB.
A drive with a 32 MB buffer is going to record data faster.
However if you are on a MacPro (Intel) which it sounds like you are,
I can confirm that using your start up disk as opposed to a dedicated
separate scratch will not be of any speed advantage with photoshop.
At least it does not seem that way from my own test.
I also found partitioning the drive does not seem to be necessary on the intel box?
I have a test that is fairly consistent regardless as long as you have sufficient RAM 8 GB or more a Raid O scratch and an the same amount of memory allowed.
I still find with CS 4 that using bigger tiles is helpful as wel as the Forced VM Buffer plug in.
They still seem to speed things up a bit.
My test work on my dual xeon core duo that way in 16-18 seconds ona 8 core MacPro with 2GB of RAM and with out the Raid 0 and using the startup as the scratch with no Raid configured and without the plug ins it takes about 3 minutes.
The Ram and the raid are the important things the other two help.

Local Interfaces in WebLogic 7.0 Not Faster Than Remote Interfaces?

I was curious how much faster calling business methods in
a stateless session EJB in WebLogic 7.0 would be through
a local interface than calling the same business methods
through a remote interface. I timed both ways of calling
the same methods and much to my surprise the times were
nearly identical. I double-checked that in one case I really
used the local interface (using ejb-local-ref, local-jndi-name,
local interfaces in source code). Does anybody (perhaps from
BEA) have an explanation for this? By the way, I ran the
same experiment with other J2EE application servers such
as IBM's WebSphere 5 (Beta) and there was a tremendous
performance difference between local and remote interface
usage.
Thanks,
Reinhard

"Reinhard Klemm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I appreciate your response and, at the same time, I am somewhat
surprised about it. Here are the reasons for my surprise:
1. Your response indicates that WebLogic uses RMI for
EJB local method calls, i.e., even if the client is on the same VM.
I would have assumed that WebLogic would bypass RMI in such
a situation.That is not what I said. Local interfaces wont use rmi.
But remote interfaces do better if the call is from the same VM. This is
weblogic rmi optimization. Please see Rob's posting also.
2. Other J2EE application servers fare a lot better. In one
experiment, I timed WebLogic against WebSphere 5.0 Technology
for Developers (i.e., WebSphere 5.0 Beta, which is expressly
NOT for performance testing) and against the Sun Reference
Implementation. Here are the numbers for calling business
methods in a stateless session EJB through its local interface:
WebLogic: 5.15 ms on the average
WebSphere: 0.41 ms on the average
Sun Reference Implementation: 0.11 ms on the average
This indicates to me that both WebSphere and the Sun Reference
Implementation are better optimized than WebLogic by excluding
RMI when making local EJB calls.
Reinhard
"Maruthi Nuthikattu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
Can you post some numbers so that we can visualize the difference.
Please add the numbers with other J2EE appserver also.
Otherwise top of my head, the reason is:
Weblogic rmi is well optimized for the calls with in the same JVM andsame
J2EE application.
This could be the reason you are not seeing much difference.
..maruthi
"Reinhard Klemm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I was curious how much faster calling business methods in
a stateless session EJB in WebLogic 7.0 would be through
a local interface than calling the same business methods
through a remote interface. I timed both ways of calling
the same methods and much to my surprise the times were
nearly identical. I double-checked that in one case I really
used the local interface (using ejb-local-ref, local-jndi-name,
local interfaces in source code). Does anybody (perhaps from
BEA) have an explanation for this? By the way, I ran the
same experiment with other J2EE application servers such
as IBM's WebSphere 5 (Beta) and there was a tremendous
performance difference between local and remote interface
usage.
Thanks,
Reinhard

IPhone 4 Wireless N Problem - Not Faster than Old 3GS

What speed are you getting on the new iPhone 4 on your wireless N network? I'm only getting the same speed as I got on my old 3GS phone on a a/b wireless network. Shouldn't it be faster?

Phil Crosno wrote:
Hi,
I have an Airport Extreme, when I select Radio Mode 802.11n (802.11b/g compatible) my rate as shown on the Airport Extreme Wireless Clients is 39, while my iPhone 3gs is 54 and my MacBook is 130.
When I select Radio Mode 802.11n only (2.4 GHz) the iPhone 4 is 39 and MacBook is 130.
When I select Radio Mode (using the option key) 802.11g only the iPhone 4 is 54, iPhone 3gs is 54 and the MacBook is 54.........
You can't really compare different hardware and their connections to a wireless AP and say they should be the same. Different radio hardware will perform differently even when connected to the same physical access point.
Also, the numbers you posted are the speed of the link from your devices to the AP itself and have little to nothing to do with the speeds you'll get when you go out to the Internet where all connection go through the same pipe.
So at 802.11n even though you might connect at 130Mbps to the AP, if you are only getting 12Mbps to the Internet through your router/modem then that's all you'll get on the device connected at 130Mbps.
Dave

Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
These are the specs for my computer...
ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
Any help would be much apreciated.
Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
*EDIT*
OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
*EDIT*
OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

Current xserve raid speed rate not fast enough

guys,
my xserve raid having problem when i edit HD project 1920*1080, its ok when i edit, but when i view all 30 mins movie, its hang when play till 5 mins of the movie, and keep on hanging after that, why is that? is it because the setting of my xserve raid got problem? read n write speed not fast enough?
help plzzzz

Both the write cache ticks should be on, The allow host cache flushing should be off. The use steady streaming mode tick should be off also. (So the pattern of th ticks is: on, off, on, off)
The stripes stting depends on the cache size of the disk. On disks with lower than 16 MB, the 8 stripes setting is right. On disks from 16MB cache you can use the 128 stripes setting (In general the 750 GB disks have 16 MB, the others have lower).

I am using a timed while loop and am unable to get the loop to run at a speed of less than 1ms (I am currently using the Wait(ms) function). How can I get a faster response?

I am trying to create a virtual engine within a timed while loop and am unable to get the loop to run at a speed of less than 1ms (I am currently using the Wait(ms) function). This does not however allow realistic engine speeds. How can I overcome this? I have access to a PCI-MIO-16E-4 board.

andyt writes:
> I am using a timed while loop and am unable to get the loop to run at
> a speed of less than 1ms (I am currently using the Wait(ms) function).
> How can I get a faster response?
>
> I am trying to create a virtual engine within a timed while loop and
> am unable to get the loop to run at a speed of less than 1ms (I am
> currently using the Wait(ms) function). This does not however allow
> realistic engine speeds. How can I overcome this? I have access to
> a PCI-MIO-16E-4 board.
Andy,
Unless you use a real time platform, getting extactly 1 ms loop rate
(or even less) is impossible. It starts getting troublesome at about
0.1 Hz for standard operating systems.
I'd tackle your problem with "if i mod 10 == 0 then sleep 1 ms".
Of
course this is jerky by design.
HTH,
Johannes Nie?

Optimum servo pid loop rate

Hi,
I want some confirmation on the optimum pid loop rate and the fastest servo motor operation that we can acheive with Pxi-7352 running on Window.
The manual of 7352 says "62 μs PID loop update rate for up to 2 axes". The requirment is to acheive periodic equi sized straight line and rotary motion ( using yaskawa servo motors in torque mode and 7352 to close position loop ) Both motion are independant and not operating simultaneous i.e rotary completes one full rotation in small steps and then linear moves by one small step then rotary completes next rotation in small steps and again linear motor moves this continues till end of test.
you can observe here that both rotary and liner motion are periodic and move equi spaced distance for each step with small stoppage/dwell time of 500 u sec , The catch is in addition to positional accuracy in terms of 50 -100 microns the time for complete each step is also very crucial and very small (many peridoc steps together consitute complete linear and rotary motion). Find expected velocity profile attached for more details on desired timing.
As the motors have simple and periodic straight line and rotary motion i suppose buffered contour moves are not needed which have limitation of 10 msec between two points, then can the time to acheive each step be as low as 2.5 to 5 msec considering best loop rate of 62.5 u sec and highest/worst pid loop rate of 500 usec.
1. Is the expected timing of 2.5 - 5 m sec feasible assuming that the motor is capable of reaching 5000 rpm which is well above desired speed.
2. 735x series being high performance motion controller what is the order of closed loop timing that we can expect for simple and periodic moves (say in order of 1000 usec or 10 msec)
3. Can i interface one stepper motor and another servo motor where both the motors and drives are in position mode on single 7352 and UMI 7772.
4. Are there any limitation if NI motion is not used for code development and NI motion Assistant along with LabVIEW is used instead.
This is precision application and the component is very small ,the weight of the component would be less than 400 grams so i hope we do not have to consider inertial affect on motion significantly.
Appriciate if some one with similar experience can provide more details.
Regards,
Bipin
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
Velocity Profile.png ‏21 KB

Hi Bipin,
thank you for your comprehensive post. I had a close look at your timing specs and I strongly doubt, that these specs can be met with a 7352 board. Even though the PID loop rate of 62.5µs might be enough, both trajectory generator and the supervisory control (host communication, move command sequencing,...) are too slow to meet your requirements. Please note, that the trajectory generator always works with a timing interval of 10 ms, regardless of the operation mode (linear move, contouring, blending,...), so there is no way to reach your timing specs with this product. In general contouring is the fastest way to run a quick succession of moves, as it doesn't require host communication (by the way: onboard programs don't execute much faster, than programs that are running on the host).
I don't want to make negative mareketing for our 735x boards, but your timing requirements are just way beyond the requirements of typical motion control applications and it's probably quite hard to find any COTS product in the market, that can meet these specs.
With this said, I would like to offer you an alternative solution, that is based on NI's FPGA technology. Additionally to a faster trajectory generator a faster control loop is probably also very desireable for your application. Even with the lowest price Virtex-II based R-Series multifunction board (PCI-7830R) you can run PID loops with 5µs cycle time and the trajectory generator at the same rate. You even can use a different type of control algorithm if required. This technology is leveraged very successfull in a lot of applications with very high performance and accuracy requirements (here are some examples).
So these are the pros, but where are the cons? Well, the R-Series boards are general purpose FPGA boards and not ready to run motion control boards, so you need to develop the low-level control application by yourself. The good news here is, that it can all be done graphically in LabVIEW and that there are many ready to run examples for motion control, that can be used as a base for your development. Additionally you may want to have a look at the NI SoftMotion Development Module for LabVIEW, that simplifies the development of motion control applications, but it is not a mandatory tool and the benefits of this module might not be as high for your application, as ithey are for more standard motion control applications.
I hope that helps.
Kind regards,
Jochen Klier
National Instruments

PID loop rate with counters

I'm trying to use a PXI-8106 RT and LabviewRT 8.5 as a PID controller to control 3 motors. I'm measuring the speed of the motors by measuring the frequency of the encoder with a 6608.
This article http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5423 claims a speed up to 107.5 khz. I've set ethernet to polling and usb off, I didn't turn off the CPU display, but I'll try that as soon as I can. However, I'm not anywhere close to 107khz, best I can get is about 10khz with one channel and about 2 khz with 3 channels. I realize the tests were done with analog inputs, but I was hoping that I'd get at least somewhere close using counters. With the 2Khz rate I really can't do what I need to do.
Does anyone know what a realistic rate would be with this setup?
I'm new at Labview so I may be doing something wrong, although I can't see what it could be. I've done quite a bit of research on the forums before I started to learn from other's examples.
Here's a couple of things I've learned trying to optimize my loops.
Seems like Daqmx has some issues with applying a scale. I have 2 scales, one is just a scale factor, 0.166, the other is .0002. When applying the .0002 factor in Daqmx my performance takes a huge hit, something like 10%! If I just leave it at hz, and do the scaling myself I see no performance penalty.
There is something strange about the timed loop % display in RT8.5, I wrote my own routine using expected end, actual end time, and the period to give me a % loop useage and it matches very well to the RT8.5 display for most of the time, however, when the loop starts missing iterations because I've gone over 100% the RT display drops down to about 50% which pretty much makes it useless.
I've attached a couple of shots of my test loop. I can get this one to almost hit 10 khz. the other screen shots are of how I set up the counter, and how I read the counter. the read counter has the error trap to restart itself. Also I set it to use DMA explicitly somewhere else in the program.
Thanks for any help.
Henri
Attachments:
Main Loop.JPG ‏55 KB
Setup Counter.JPG ‏72 KB
Read Counter.JPG ‏67 KB

Devin,
Thanks for the suggestions.
A couple of related questions for you.
The 200 uSec is leftover from my attempts at getting the 3 PID loops to work within the loop availability. I can run about 70 uSec i.e about 14khz with only a single counter.
I've tried changing the buffers value and it has barely any effect on the speed of the loop. Right now I have 3 counters running with 200uSec timing and I get about 69% loop utilization. With a few missed iterations every once in a while. This is using 10000 samples, if I drop down to 100 samples utilization actually goes up to 70%!? Doesn't make sense to me either, but this is using both my VI and the on screen Timed Structures % of LV8.5RT so I'm trusting it as real,
In theory if I can get my loop rate up to 10 khz I'll only need 10 for the buffers since my top frequency to be measured is 100 kHz.
Funny thing on the RT fifo variable... I turned on FIFO and it actually decreased performance by about 1%, both Total load and Time structures went up... so I turned it off for stop-RT, and got a 3% improvement! Down to 66% time structures.
You mentioned the hardware timing to get a hardware timed single point. Unless I misunderstood the counters, this isn't possible since the sample rate is implicit in the frequency measured? i.e. it latches the count every rising edge.. so I'm my case I'd get a 100 khz sample rate (although obviouslyl that would be the max) Can you let me know if I've missed something there.
I bought this system explicitly based on its dual core and its high speed so I could close my PID loops quickly enough with one CPU and still have processing time left over to log data, etc. And the 6608 card is there so I can get high accuracy for my frequency measurements. However, I'm really struggling to get this thing going.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Henri

[FPGA] Loop rate very slow: Do FPGA I/O nodes in parallel loops block each other?

Hi,
I am using cRIO-9075. Mod1 is NI 9263, Mod2 is NI 9227, Mod3 is 9215.
Please see my VI attached or the given screenshot.
The FPGA code is based on the "NI CompactRIO Waveform Reference Library" (it's the lower loop).
The upper loop was added by me and is writing a waveform from blockmemory to the NI 9263 module (Mod 1).
The data sampled in the lower loop is running at 1 kHz. The control "AO Update Period" for the upper loop has a value of (for example) 10 (=uS).
The problem is, that this loop is running much much slower than it should. Once I disable the FPGA I/O node in the lower loop (as done in the attachments), it's running as fast as it should.
It seems to me, that the FPGA I/O nodes are blocking each other. I tried to figure it out by reading through serveral NI documents, but until now I have no idea how to solve that.
Can you give me some advices? Some general tipps about the VI?
Thanks!
Attachments:
FPGA Loop Rate.PNG ‏72 KB
FPGA Main.vi ‏251 KB

Hi, thanks so far.
Originally the control was inside the loop. Then I tried if it makes a difference if it's outside.
Ok, i really seems to be that default value of "100000" for "AO Update Period".
Starting the VI directly woks like expected. Having "AO Update period" inside the loop makes it possible to control it as it's running.
But, please see the attachment. When starting the FPGA through RT and setting the appropiate value, it does not seem to work. The oscilloscope show's the same behavior like "AO Update Period" was 100000.
But when reading the value of "AO Update Period" afterwards (while the FPGA is running), it shows the expected value of "10".
Having changed the default value to 10 works so far, but I am not able to changed it (see attachment).
So the problem is: Why is "Read/Write control" not working here? Why is still the default value used?
Attachments:
FPGA Loop Rate 2.PNG ‏5 KB

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

In general, RAID 0 or not faster?

In general, if it can be generalized, is two drives in RAID 0 faster than the same two drives not in a RAID? Or does it depend on other factors such as system specs?

Peru Bob wrote:
I was just wondering if I had a hard drive failure, would using five separate discs be any slower.
Yes it would definitely be slower so it depends on what media (and their codecs) you are using. If you have access to Harm's latest data on PPBM7 you can see what he recommends for different codecs.

Time controlled Loop faster than 1ms

HI
I work with Labview 8.2.1.
I need a time controlled loop who is faster than 1ms. I tried to use the 1MHZ time source (see picture) but the loop does not work with this.
Please help
Message Edited by SteffenGrab on 11-30-2007 01:13 PM
Message Edited by SteffenGrab on 11-30-2007 01:17 PM
Attachments:
Time loop.JPG ‏66 KB

There is no picture to see...
Now is the right time to use %^<%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S%3uZ>T
If you don't hate time zones, you're not a real programmer.
"You are what you don't automate"
Inplaceness is synonymous with insidiousness

Out of Memory Error, Buffer Sizes, and Loop Rates on RT and FPGA

I'm attempting to use an FPGA to collect data and then transfer that data to a RT system via a FIFO DMA, and then stream it from my RT systeam over to my host PC. I have the basics working, but I'm having two problems...
The first is more of a nuisance. I keep receiving an Out of Memory error. This is a more recent development, but unfortunately I haven't been able to track down what is causing it and it seems to be independent of my FIFO sizes. While not my main concern, if someone was able to figure out why I would really appreciate it.
Second, I'm struggling with overflows. My FPGA is running on a 100 MHz clock and my RT system simply cannot seem to keep up. I'm really only looking at recording 4 seconds of data, but it seems that no matter what I do I can't escape the problem without making my FIFO size huge and running out of memory (this was before I always got the Out of Memory error). Is there some kind of tip or trick I'm missing? I know I can set my FPGA to a slower clock but the clock speed is an important aspect of my application.
I've attached a simplified version of my code that contains both problems. Thanks in advance for taking a look and helping me out, I appreciate any feedback!

David-A wrote:
The 7965 can't stream to a host controller faster than 800MB/s. If you need 1.6GB/s of streaming you'll need to get a 797x FPGA module.
I believe the application calls for 1.6 GB over 4s, so 400 MB/s, which should be within the capabilities of the 7965.
I was going to say something similar about streaming over ethernet. I agree that it's going to be necessary to find a way to buffer most if not all of the data between the RT Target and the FPGA Target. There may be some benefit to starting to send data over the network, but the buffer on the host is still going to need to be quite large. Making use of the BRAMS and RAM on the 7965 is an interesting possibility.
As a more out there idea, what about replacing the disk in your 8133 with an SSD? I'm not entirely sure what kind of SATA connection is in the 8133, and you'd have to experiment to be sure, but I think 400 MB/s or close to that should be quite possible. You could write all the data to disk and then send it over the network from disk once the aquisiton is complete. http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/F3090563C2FC9DC686256CCD007451A8 has some information on using SSDs with PXI Controllers.
Sebastian

Rates being redetermined. Form not received for delivery 0040008146 from 00

Hi ! All,
I m creating a Export Proforma Invoice ( It is a copy of Billing Type JEX ) with respect to a delivery , I am getting the following error-
Rates being redetermined. Form not received for delivery 0040008146 from 0000000012
Message no. 8I642
Diagnosis
Excise rates are being re-determined. This is becuase you have not received the Concession form for the delivery document & yet from the customer &
System Response
System will apply the normal excise duty rates and generate an excise invoice
Procedure
In case you have forgotten to record the receipt of the Forms please do so in Forms tracking for the Sales order and delivery.
Please analyse and let me know what is possible solution.
Regards,
Ashutosh

I feel the process what you had narrated itself is wrong.
It seems some zee table is developed wherein, the users should maintain data related to some concession forms which I feel should be applicable to domestic sales.
Apart from the above, for exports, I dont know why you were generating proforma copying billing type JEX. You were supposed to copy F5 (order related proforma) or F8 (delivery related proforma).
Since in your case, you have indicated that you have generated against a delivery, you should copy F8 billing type and maintain copy control accordingly in VTFL.
Last but not least, the message number also seems to be not a standard one.
thanks
G. Lakshmipathi

Loop rate on my RT system not faster than 1kHz

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for