Why limited buffer size in JCWDE 2.2.2

I use the APDU I/O library (included with the Java Card development kit 2.2.2) to test a Java card program against the JCWDE simulator (also against a real card).
I encounted problems when the input data length is more than 128 bytes (I found this by heuristic experiments). For example, if I put 255 bytes data on the data field, I got an error response from the simulator
The code segment:
byte [] data = new byte [255];
Apdu apdu = new Apdu();
apdu.command = HEADER;
apdu.setDataIn(data);
cad.exchangeApdu(apdu);
System.out.println(apdu.toString());
And I got:
CLA: b0, INS: 59, P1: 00, P2: 00, Lc: ff, 00, ...(omitted)... 00, Le: 00, SW1: 67, SW2: 00
However, I tested the same thing on the real card (JC 2.2.2) and it all worked fine. The problem seems to be that the simulator somehow limits the data length to be under 128 bytes. But the correct range should be [0, 255] for standard APDU.
Does someone encounter the same problem? Your advice is appreciated.
Edited by: Camfish on Jul 17, 2009 7:53 AM

What is oracle version you have .
This 64K limitations are in Oracle 9i and below

Similar Messages

Where can I change the buffer size for LKM File to Oracle (EXTRENAL TABLE)?

Hi all,
I'd a problem on the buffer size the "LKM File to Oracle (EXTRENAL TABLE)" as follow:
2801 : 72000 : java.sql.SQLException: ORA-12801: error signaled in parallel query server P000
ORA-29913: error in executing ODCIEXTTABLEFETCH callout
ORA-29400: data cartridge error
KUP-04020: found record longer than buffer size supported, 524288, in D:\OraHome_1\oracledi\demo\file\PARTIAL_SHPT_FIXED_NHF.dat
Do you know where can I change the buffer size?
Remarks: The size of the file is ~2Mb.
Tao

Hi,
The behavior is explained in Bug 4304609 .
You will encounter ORA-29400 & KUP-04020 errors if the RECORDSIZE clause in the access parameters for the ORACLE_LOADER access driver is larger than 10MB and you are loading records larger than 10MB. Which means their is a another limitation on read size of a record which is termed as granule size. If the default granule size is less then RECORDSIZE it limits the size of the read buffer to granule size.
Use the pxxtgranule_size parameter to change the size of the granule to a number larger than the size specified for the read buffer.You can use below query to determine the current size of the granule.
SELECT KSPFTCTXPN PARAMETER_NUMBER,
KSPPINM PARAMETER_NAME,
KSPPITY PARAMETER_TYPE,
KSPFTCTXVL PARAMETER_VALUE,
KSPFTCTXDF IS_DEFAULT,
KSPPIFLG MODIFICATION_FLAG,
KSPFTCTXVF VALUE_FLAG
FROM X$KSPPI X, X$KSPPCV2 Y
WHERE (X.INDX+1) = KSPFTCTXPN AND
KSPPINM LIKE '%_px_xtgranule_size%';
There is no 'ideal' or recommended value for pxxtgranule_size parameter, it is safe to increase it to work around this particular problem. You can set this parameter using ALTER SESSION/SYSTEM command.
SQL> alter system set "_px_xtgranule_size"=10000;
Thanks,
Sutirtha

Getting recv buffer size error even after tuning

I am on AIX 5.3, IBM J9 VM (build 2.3, J2RE 1.5.0 IBM J9 2.3...), Coherence 3.1.1/341
I've set the following parameters as root:
no -o sb_max=4194304
no -o udp_recvspace=4194304
no -o udp_sendspace=65536
I still get the following error:
UnicastUdpSocket failed to set receive buffer size to 1428 packets (2096304 bytes); actual size is 44 packets (65536 bytes)....
The following commands/responses confirm that the settings are in place:
$ no -o sb_max
sb_max = 4194304
$ no -o udp_recvspace
udp_recvspace = 4194304
$ no -o udp_sendspace
udp_sendspace = 65536
Why am I still getting the error? Do I need to bounce the machine or is there a different tunable I need to touch?
Thanks
Ghanshyam

Can you try running the attached utility, and send us the output. It will simply try to allocate a variety of socket buffer sizes and report which succeed and which fail. Based on the Coherence log message I expect this program will also fail to allocate a buffer larger then 65536, but it will allow you verify the issue externally from Coherence.
There was an issue with IBM's 1.4 AIX JVM which would not allow allocation of buffers larger then 1MB. This program should allow you to identify if 1.5 has a similar issue. If so you may wish to contact IBM support regarding obtaining a patch.
thanks,
Mark Attachment: so.java (*To use this attachment you will need to rename 399.bin to so.java after the download is complete.) Attachment: so.class (*To use this attachment you will need to rename 400.bin to so.class after the download is complete.)

How does buffer size affect double buffered waveform generation?

I had originally posted the following question:
"Why does the double buffered waveform generation pause after the first buffer before continuing?"
"I am using an AT-AO-10 board to generate a multiple channel waveform in double buffered mode. The board's DAC's are updated by an external clock signal. While the waveform generation performs well, I notice that after the first buffer has been generated there is a time delay before the next buffer is output. However the second buffer and thereafter perform well without any time delays. If anyone can provide me an explanation on why this happens I would appreciate it. I am using NI-DAQ API functions to generate the waveforms and my settings for the WFM_DB_Config function are 1 for oldDataStop to disallow regeneration of data and 0 for partialTransferStop to not stop when a half buffer is partially transferred."
-posted by Vadi on 6/7/2001
I received a response from Geneva as follows:
Geneva L. on 6/11/2001 says:
"Vadi,
The first thing is to make sure that you have the latest version of NI-DAQ installed, NI-DAQ 6.9.1. If you need to install it, make sure you completely uninstall any prior versions. Then, you will have examples installed in either the NI-DAQ or the CVI directory. In the AO directory, you should find the WFMdoubleBuf example.
Start with that to make sure the output appears as you expect. Then, you can modify it to apply your external update clock, following the idea presented in the WFMsingleBufExtUpdate example. You might even want to double-check that your external clock acts as you expect using an oscilloscope.
Finally, modify the example such that you can update on multiple channels, remembering that you interleave each channels buffer into one buffer for WFM_DB_Transfer. Whatever data is in the buffer will be updated on the output channels.
Regards,
Geneva L.
Applications Engineer
National Instruments"
I have checked my version of NI-DAQ and it is 6.9.1. I am generating the double buffered waveform according to the format shown in WFMdoubleBuf and with some modifications from WFMsingleBufExtUpdate to allow me to use my external update clock. However I continue to notice the same phenomena again and again. For a buffer size of 7500 or 10000 points there is a time lag meaning after the first buffer has been output there is a noticeable time delay before the second buffer and buffers there after is output. This time lag doesn't exist for the buffers that are output after the first buffer but it does exist for the first buffer. When I decrease the buffer size down to 5000 points the time lag disappears (Note: this phenomena also occurs when I use an internal time base as opposed to my external clock). Is there a reason for this? I am using a AT-AO-10 board and I know the on board FIFO is 1024 points deep. However from the documentation provided it doesn't indicate that double buffered mode uses the on board FIFO at all. In fact, the functions require that the FIFO mode be turned off (in WFM_Load) for double buffered waveform generation. Is there a reason why when the buffer size is increased that there is a time lag after the first buffer? Is this because of the functions themselves or is this because of the AT-AO-10 board?

Vadi,
Make sure that your buffer size is set to the same number of points that you're actually writing to the buffer initially. For instance, if you run the example as-is, the NIDAQMakeBuffer puts exactly the ulCount amount of data into the buffer. Then, it continuously writes out half buffers. Thus, if you are not writing enough data to fill up the buffer the first time, there will be that lag until the section where half buffers are output.
Regards,
Geneva L.
Applications Engineer
National Instruments
http://www.ni.com/ask

Doing Buffered Event count by using Count Buffered Edges.vi, what is the max buffer size allowed?

I'm currently using Count Buffered Edges.vi to do Buffered Event count with the following settings,
Source : Internal timebase, 100Khz, 10usec for each count
gate : use the function generator to send in a 50Hz signal(for testing purpose only). Period of 0.02sec
the max internal buffer size that i can allocate is only about 100~300. Whenever i change both the internal buffer size and counts to read to a higher value, this vi don't seem to function well. I need to have a buffer size of at least 2000.
1. is it possible to have a buffer size of 2000? what is the problem causing the wrong counter value?
2. also note that the size of max internal buffer varies w
ith the frequency of signal sent to the gate, why is this so? eg: buffer size get smaller as frequency decrease.
3. i'll get funny response and counter value when both the internal buffer size and counts to read are not set to the same. Why is this so? is it a must to set both value the same?
thks and best regards
lyn

Hi,
I have tried the same example, and used a 100Hz signal on the gate. I increased the buffer size to 2000 and I did not get any errors. The buffer size does not get smaller when increasing the frequency of the gate signal; simply, the number of counts gets smaller when the gate frequency becomes larger. The buffer size must be able to contain the number of counts you want to read, otherwise, the VI might not function correctly.
Regards,
RamziH.

Camera raw 6.5 limiting crop size

When I load up a raw image in camera raw 6.5, CS5 - the cropping tool suddenly is not working correctly
It limits the size of the crop that I can do. I used to be able to surround the entire image with a crop and then edit it smaller on each of the sides as needed. But now, for some reason, it will not let me capture the entire image - only lets me highlight about 3/4 of it. This is true for all my raw images - even ones that previously had no problems
any ideas?

Updates are grayed out in photoshop - don't know why. Even removed the 1.0 directory in App Data which was supposed to bring it back to being non-gray - but it did not. So no, I can't even update.
However, I have two laptops - clones of eachother - the crop is still working perfectly on the other one. So, I thought maybe the copy with the crop problem had corruption - so I deactivated, removed and then reinstalled a fresh copy. But still the same problem.
When I go to crop - it will not let me crop the whole image - only about 3/4 the size of any image...?
Other ideas?
keg

VISA Set I/O Buffer Size fails with all but one value on Linux RT

I was unable to initialize a serial port on a cRIO-9030 using a code that works fine on VxWorks and Windows, when I tracked it down to this somewhat strange behaviour;
If you call VISA Set I/O Buffer Size on Linux RT (at least on the 9030 device) you will get error code 1073676424 for all size values other than 0.
That is a bit strange (what will the buffer size be then I might add...), but something even uglier is that if you leave the function's buffer size unwire, you will also get the error (because the function's default is 4096).
MTO

Under the hood VISA is using the POSIX serial interface for Mac OS X (same as for Linux and Solaris). This interface does not support changing the buffer size. Hence, the buffer size is fixed to the internal OS buffer size. The only thing that changing the buffer size will do (for the out buffer) is to have VISA not flush the data after every write. This is a limitation in the serial API for Mac OS X. Therefore, VISA reports a warning.

Want to know the buffer size on the 5SD mk3...

... and/or the number of full res raw files it can hold. Wondering if I usually shoot a max of six shot bursts, does the card write speed even matter?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

dbltapp wrote:
... and/or the number of full res raw files it can hold. Wondering if I usually shoot a max of six shot bursts, does the card write speed even matter?
At 6 shots it doesn't matter.
See: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/eos_understanding_burst_rates.htmlp
The conservative estimate for the buffer size (in RAW mode) is that the buffer will hold about 13 shots before the camera has to wait for data to write out in order to clear enough buffer space for another shot. I've actually tested this with my 5D III and have found that in practice the number is a bit higher -- having about 18 shots before it slowed down due to buffer limits.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

JMS Server Message Buffer Size & Thresholds and Quotas settings

On WLS10MP1,
For persistent messages:
1.Does "JMS Server Message Buffer" setting serve the same purpose as "Bytes Threshold High" under Threshold ?
2.If no, can someone explain the difference pls.
Many thanx,

Message Buffer Size relates to the number of message the JMS server keeps in the memory. The value of this determines when the server should start paging the message out of memory to a persistence store. So this is directly related with the memory/storage issue and the size of messages.
Bytes Threshold High relates to the performance of the JMS server. When this limit is reached JMS server starts logging the message and may even instruct he producer to slow down the message input.
So the if you get Bytes Threshold High messages that means you should check on your consumer (MDB who is picking up messages from the que), and try to increase its performance.
However if your Message Buffer Size is crossing limits then you should think of increasing the momory so that more messages can be kept in memory and disck IO can be reduce.
Anyone wants to add something more to it?

Apple TV 3 buffer size?

I currently have an HTPC that I want to replace with the ATV3. I rip all my Blu-Ray and DVD disks and encode them in x264 using Handbrake. This keeps my toddler from destroying my media (especially since many of them are Disney movies) and keeps all our movies easily accessable.
Since the ATV3 uses an A5 CPU, that means it is limited to L4.0 of x264, which means my files max bitrate can only be 25mb. I use variable bitrates which I currently have capped at 40mb (as to not exceed the source). I plan to change up my future encodes to limit the max bitrate to 25mb, but when you specify a max bitrate you need a buffer size as well.
So the question becomes, what is the hardware buffer size for the new ATV3? I would assume it is more than 25mb, but I want to be sure before I start doing more encodes so I do not run into playback problems.

Tree Dude wrote:
I am not sure what I said that was against the T&Cs. Backing up disks I purchased is completely legal and a very common use for these types of devices.
Apple Support Communities Terms of Use
Specifically 2 below:
Keep within the Law
No material may be submitted that is intended to promote or commit an illegal act.
Do not submit software or descriptions of processes that break or otherwise 'work around' digital rights management software or hardware. This includes conversations about 'ripping' DVDs or working around FairPlay software used on the iTunes Store.
Do not post defamatory material.
Your usage to any sane person constitutes 'fair use'. Specific laws regarding this kind of thing vary from country to country, but Apple tend to frown on such discussions - their rules not ours.
If you bend the rules, your posts may get deleted. Trust me, been there, had posts deleted in the past.
AC

Buffer Size - How low can you go

I was wondering if you guys can exchange some information about your Buffer Size settings in Logic and how much milage you can get out of it.
I upgraded to the new 8-core 2.8GHz MacPro a few weeks a go and thought I would live in 32Sample Buffer Size dreamland until the software developers come out with the next CPU hungry beast. But it looks like that a lot of the current Software Instruments bring down the new Intel Macs already to their knees.
*This is my setup:*
MacPro 2.8GHz 8-core, 12GB RAM, OSX 10.5.3, Logic 8.02, Fireface 800
*This is my Problem:*
If I'm looking at one channel of i.e. Sculpture, then all the 8 cores don't do me any good, because Logic can use only 1 core per channel strip. The additional cores come into place when I'm playing
multiple tracks and Logic spread the CPU workload across those cores. So if I set the Buffer Size to the minimum of 32 Samples, then it comes down to one 2.8GHz processor and if he is powerful enough to process that one Software instrument without clicks and interruptions.
Sculpture:
Some of the patches are already so demanding that I reach the CPU limit when I play chords of four to eight notes with the 32 Sample Setting. If I add some "heavy" FX Plug-ins like amp modeling then I definitely reach the limit.
_Trilogy and Atmosphere Wrapper:_
Most of the time I have to increase the buffer size to 128 just to play a few notes. These "workaround wrapper plugins" are a plain joke from Spectrasonics and almost useless. There is plenty of discussion in various forums how they pizzzed off o lot of their customers with the way they handled their Intel transition regarding these two great plugins.
*Audio Interface Considerations:*
The different vendors of audio interfaces brag about their low latency of their devices. Especially Apogee's Symphony System was supposed to deliver extremely low latency. When they demoed their hardware at various Apple events, they played gazzillions of track and plug-ins and everything was running at 32 Buffer Size. I never saw however a demo where they loaded a gazzillions Sculpture instruments and showed that playing with 32 Buffer Size.
*Here are my basic three questions:*
1) Anybody experiencing already the same limitations with the new MacPros when it comes to intense Software Instruments
2) Anybody uses the 3.2GHz machines and has better results, or is it just marginal.
3) Anybody running the Symphony System and can throw any Software Instruments at it with 32 Buffer Size.
+BTW, the OSX 10.5.3 update fixed the constant popping up of the "System Overload" window, but regarding the CPU load with Software Instruments, I don't see that much of an improvement.+

My system is happy at 32 samples with the FF800... This is on the Jan 8 Core with 6 gig RAM, running X.5.3, Logic 8.0.2.
Plugs include - NI Komplete5 bundle, Waves GOLD, BFD2 (thought this would stump it but it's fine with 2.0.4) Access Virus TI Snow.
Safety IO buffer off and the Buffer set to small.

I/O Buffer Size Causes Bounce Delay

Hi All,
Came across a really frustrating problem here. I've got a pretty sizable project I'm trying to finish up. I'm about to send it to someone else to mix, so I'm bouncing out a few of the tracks that contain instruments that the mixer doesn't have. Unfortunately, everything I bounce is coming out delayed, depending on the I/O buffer size. Just to verify this, I bounced out a clip with the buffer set to 128 and one with the buffer at 1024, both with the click left on. Sure enough, the 1024 is pretty significantly delayed from the click, whereas the 128 is pretty much right on it.
I'm using some inserts across the project, but really nothing significant. All instruments, vocals, etc. are being bussed to aux tracks for grouping and then all of the group tracks are being sent to a master bus track which is going out the stereo out. I don't have any processors on the master bus or stereo out, and PDC is set to "all".
Anyone else experiencing this? More importantly, does anyone have a solution? I'd really rather not have to figure out the sample delay and shift everything.

I would think it has more to do with the Fast Track Pro than your computer or Logic. Does the FTP have drivers or is it system compliant? (plug it in and it just works)
All things considered that's a very inexpensive interface.
Please don't take this next bit personally... Unless you have a pristine listening environment and top of the line equipment... recording at 96kHz is not really a wise decision. Recording at 24-bit will have a much greater impact than the sample rate.
Here's what happens at 96kHz.
The files recorded are twice the size of files recorded at 48kHz.
A 96kHz / 24-bit stereo file is approx 35 Megs a minute, add to that effects running at 96kHz and is fairly easy to over load an iMac or Laptop type machine.. a MacPro will fare a little better, depending on the audio hardware.
Effects like Space Designer and some of the top line AU-instruments s-u-c--k CPU cycles as well.
What I think you're seeing is an overload of the bus system, why it happens at higher buffer levels is anyone's guess, most would say it's the iffy M-Audio drivers.
pancenter-

Lower buffer size

I just found out that I can use 64 buffer without safety buffer when using no plugins in the concert view.
I use Mainstage for playing guitar and I wondered why I can't use the same buffer setting, that I could use in Logic with the same channel strips.
I'm switching between 5 patches with GuitarAmp Pro basically.
After deleting the plugins in the Concert the performance became much better.

Channel strips at Concert level are always active, therefore always cost CPU load. That could push your machine with a 64 buffer size "over the edge". A similar situation are channel strips at Set level, which are active as long as that Set is active.

Does weblogic set socket buffer size ?

Hi all,
Want to know if Weblogic sets the Socket buffer size,when it establishes a connection with a client ?
If so then what is its default value?
any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Thanks for all your reply.
I give u more detail on my issue:
Test Environment:
Server: 4 GB memory, 1.3 GHz, a dual core CPU with hyper-threading enabled on each core (4 logical CPUs), a tomcat with my application deployed
Client: the same configuration as Server, a http simulator
Network: 1Gb/s
Test:
1> Simulate one user. Client keep sending requests to server, and server has one thread serve user's requests. (make Server always busy)
request
Server <------------- Client
response
Server ---------------> Client
request
Server <-------------- Client
CPU usage was 18%, in normal case should be 25% (100% / 4 = 25%, in my other cases, CPU were 25%)
Take a few thread dumps: saw threads sometimes blocked in the native method java.net.SocketOutputStream.socketWrite0(Native Method).
2> Simulate 4 concurrent users. Client keep sending requests to server concurrently, and server has multiple threads serve user's requests. (make Server always busy)
4 requests
Server <------------- Client
responses
Server ---------------> Client
requests
Server <-------------- Client
CPU usage was 80%, in normal case should be 90%+.
Take a few thread dumps: saw threads sometimes blocked in the native method java.net.SocketOutputStream.socketWrite0(Native Method).
If CPU was not fully utilized, for example only 80%, server must be blocked by something. And this bottleneck would impact the scalability of server.
If I can remove this bottleneck and do not bring other overheads, I may acquire:
1> a higher throughput
2> a more scalable server
In our performance requirement, server CPU usage must be 90%+.
I just feel strange that why the CPU usage was normal (25% for single thread test or 90%+ for 4 threads test) even I choose a very small buffer size.

Performance affected from the socket buffer size

I have a server program deployed in the Tomcat server.
I found the server was sometime blocked in the native method java.net.SocketOutputStream.socketWrite0(Native Method). And the CPU was not fully utilized.
Intuitive thinking, may be I can solve this problem by increasing the socket send buffer size. So I tried it.
By default, tomcat socket send buffer size is 9000 bytes or so. I increased this value to 102400 bytes. Tested again. CPU usage was around 100%. OK, it worked.
But how about if I decrease this value to a small number? I tried. Set the value to 100 bytes. Tested again. CPU usage was still around 100% !!!
So, the problem here is: CPU was not able to be fully utilized by using the default buffer size (9000 bytes). But if you increase the value to a very large number or a very small number, you can achieve a better performance.
note: the client was sending requests all the time. Just like the stress test. So, the server side was always busy.
Edited by: willpowerforever on Jul 31, 2009 6:37 PM

Thanks for all your reply.
I give u more detail on my issue:
Test Environment:
Server: 4 GB memory, 1.3 GHz, a dual core CPU with hyper-threading enabled on each core (4 logical CPUs), a tomcat with my application deployed
Client: the same configuration as Server, a http simulator
Network: 1Gb/s
Test:
1> Simulate one user. Client keep sending requests to server, and server has one thread serve user's requests. (make Server always busy)
request
Server <------------- Client
response
Server ---------------> Client
request
Server <-------------- Client
CPU usage was 18%, in normal case should be 25% (100% / 4 = 25%, in my other cases, CPU were 25%)
Take a few thread dumps: saw threads sometimes blocked in the native method java.net.SocketOutputStream.socketWrite0(Native Method).
2> Simulate 4 concurrent users. Client keep sending requests to server concurrently, and server has multiple threads serve user's requests. (make Server always busy)
4 requests
Server <------------- Client
responses
Server ---------------> Client
requests
Server <-------------- Client
CPU usage was 80%, in normal case should be 90%+.
Take a few thread dumps: saw threads sometimes blocked in the native method java.net.SocketOutputStream.socketWrite0(Native Method).
If CPU was not fully utilized, for example only 80%, server must be blocked by something. And this bottleneck would impact the scalability of server.
If I can remove this bottleneck and do not bring other overheads, I may acquire:
1> a higher throughput
2> a more scalable server
In our performance requirement, server CPU usage must be 90%+.
I just feel strange that why the CPU usage was normal (25% for single thread test or 90%+ for 4 threads test) even I choose a very small buffer size.

Why limited buffer size in JCWDE 2.2.2

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for