Hi Frank and Francois

It's really strange, because works fine on windows, and it seems there is no 
reason to don't work under OpenSuse.
What kind of readers are you using? Serial or USB? Can you give the names?

I thought that maybe can be a Java problem, do you know some software to do 
this kind of test (parallelism) ? I'll check if pcsc-tools can do that...

Do you think that issue have some relationship with this Ludovic post:
http://ludovicrousseau.blogspot.com.br/2013/06/ccid-descriptor-statistics_7148.html

Thanks

Regards,

Murilo


________________________________________
De: Muscle [[email protected]] em nome de Francois Grieu 
[[email protected]]
Enviado: quarta-feira, 3 de julho de 2013 13:57
Para: MUSCLE
Assunto: Re: [Muscle] Parallel Process with readers - pcsc-lite

On 03/07/2013 17:05, MURILO COSTA wrote:
> I have a Java system (..) looking at some test results, I checked that the 
> time of process on Linux is greater than on Windows, and looks like the 
> reason is because the "parallel" process of windows, that doesn't happen on 
> Linux when two or more readers are used. In Linux the commands are not send 
> at the same time, they are synchronized, increasing the process time of whole 
> process.
>
> Is it a normal situation? Is there a way to work totally in parallel process?
>
> I am using the OpenSuse 12.3 Linux with pcsc-lite 1.8.8, and the reader 
> driver is a ccid compatible.

Like Frank Marien, I have an application using pcsc-lite (as bundled with 
whatever version of Red Hat or Centos 5 or 6)
that extensively use parallel processing on e.g. 8 readers using pcsc-lite; it 
works like a charm. It is written in C,
not Java. Perhaps you hit some JVM limitation.

  Francois Grieu

_______________________________________________
Muscle mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musclecard.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle_lists.musclecard.com

_______________________________________________
Muscle mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musclecard.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle_lists.musclecard.com

Reply via email to