Hans, Thanks for that information. Currently I am using the Community Edition, so I would need to go to the commercial version to benefit from this. This is an option, but I was wondering the following:
1) Is there somewhere a list of the differences from 5.4.1 to 6.x? We would be interested in knowing the impact of upgrading our existing code. 2) The 'single-process' deployment, if I understand the name correctly, the question is what happens on one machine if I have multiple processes, do they duplicate the database? Is there any performance issues I need to consider with that? Regards Raymond Francis From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hans van't Hag Sent: 12 October 2012 14:38 To: OpenSplice DDS Developer Mailing List Subject: Re: [OSPL-Dev] Shared Memory Configuration Issues Hey Ray, Ever considered to use the ‘single-process’ deployment mode available with V6 (that doesn’t use shared-memory) ? Regards, Hans [cid:[email protected]] Hans van 't Hag OpenSplice DDS Product Manager PrismTech Netherlands Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Tel: +31742472572 Fax: +31742472571 Gsm: +31624654078 PrismTech is a global leader in standards-based, performance-critical middleware. Our products enable our OEM, Systems Integrator, and End User customers to build and optimize high-performance systems primarily for Mil/Aero, Communications, Industrial, and Financial Markets. ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Francis,Raymond Sent: woensdag 3 oktober 2012 12:05 To: 'OpenSplice DDS Developer Mailing List' Subject: [OSPL-Dev] Shared Memory Configuration Issues Dear All, We have been using OpenSplice in various projects, in particular embedding "plugins" into 3rd party products. Up until now, DDS has worked great. But some of our projects have started running the 3rd party product with DDS on different Windows versions or using later versions of the 3rd party product, and this has resulted in the failure to create the shared kernel. In fact, almost from day 1 usage of DDS I have had to play with the Address configuration item, and felt I had settled on one that reliably worked. However, that magic number is now starting to fail. Guessing a new one is very difficult, but we have managed to change that and the DB size to get things working again. However, I would be interested in knowing how the Address can be specified. From my experience, a higher number is not necessarily going to guarantee making it work. What is a little confusing to me is that Windows has its own shared memory management, referenced by name rather than address. Why is a specific address necessary, as I can see this continually being problematic for future Windows and 3rd party product releases? Regards Raymond Francis
<<inline: image001.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ OpenSplice DDS Developer Mailing List [email protected] Subscribe / Unsubscribe http://dev.opensplice.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
