SCOUG Logo


Next Meeting: Sat, TBD
Meeting Directions


Be a Member
Join SCOUG

Navigation:


Help with Searching

20 Most Recent Documents
Search Archives
Index by date, title, author, category.


Features:

Mr. Know-It-All
Ink
Download!










SCOUG:

Home

Email Lists

SIGs (Internet, General Interest, Programming, Network, more..)

Online Chats

Business

Past Presentations

Credits

Submissions

Contact SCOUG

Copyright SCOUG



warp expowest
Pictures from Sept. 1999

The views expressed in articles on this site are those of their authors.

warptech
SCOUG was there!


Copyright 1998-2024, Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.

The Southern California OS/2 User Group
USA

SCOUG-Programming Mailing List Archives

Return to [ 30 | April | 2000 ]

<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>


Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 12:59:03 PST
From: Peter Skye <pskye@peterskye.com >
Reply-To: scoug-programming@scoug.com
To: scoug-programming@scoug.com
Subject: SCOUG-Programming: OS/2 as real-time OS ?

Content Type: text/plain

Steven Levine wrote:
>
> One thing to keep in mind, is real-time is a
> performance requirement, not an OS component.

Correct. You specify what latency you can live with, and design from
there.

The fastest response comes from dedicated hardware, and I don't mean
"computer" hardware. I'm talking analog -- opamps with fast slew rates
or whatever. It's been a few years since I designed analog pc boards
(remember Bishop Graphics and all their circuit design stickies?), but
even back then the response was "instantaneous". I _think_ slew rates
are about 20 volts/usec these days for an off-the-shelf opamp.

> I would consider OS/2 good for what I call soft real-time
> jobs where response times in the 1 mSec range are sufficient.

That's the kind of thing I'm interested in. _Why_ is "1 msec" the point
where you feel OS/2 "hits the wall"?

> Hard real-time, for me, is when you start
> looking a sub 100 uSec response times.

Is the amount of latency in the OS/2 interrupt handler enough to keep
OS/2 from achieving a 100 usec response time?

> Also, you can always achieve reduced response
> time by doing more work in the interrupt handlers,
> or in the case of OS/2, using context hooks.

Hah, you got me. What is a "context hook"?

- Peter

=====================================================

To unsubscribe from this list, send an email message
to "steward@scoug.com". In the body of the message,
put the command "unsubscribe scoug-programming".

For problems, contact the list owner at
"rollin@scoug.com".

=====================================================


<< Previous Message << >> Next Message >>

Return to [ 30 | April | 2000 ]



The Southern California OS/2 User Group
P.O. Box 26904
Santa Ana, CA 92799-6904, USA

Copyright 2001 the Southern California OS/2 User Group. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

SCOUG, Warp Expo West, and Warpfest are trademarks of the Southern California OS/2 User Group. OS/2, Workplace Shell, and IBM are registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation. All other trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.