Re: Major Panic

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hallo Thomas,

On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:04:23 +0800 GMT (07/10/2000, 10:04 +0800 GMT),
I wrote:

JS>> I'll also point out that the above generalisation does not always
JS>> hold. "Resource" is a very wide term with multiple
JS>> interpretations.

TF> Not according to what I was taught.

Which is:

"A system resource is anything that is needed by a process for its
computation to progress; in addition, the resource might be changed as
the computation proceeds. Examples of physical resources include the
processor, I/O devices, and memory. Examples of logical resources
include files, variables, and virtual devices."

Therefore, the file (bank account in your example) is a resource, the
record (account balance) is not.

JS>> As is "operating system".

TF> Again I was taught something different.

This is what the book says:

"1.2 What is an Operating System?

[...] An operating system, broadly defined, manages a computer system's
hardware, the application program, the data and any communication with
the user or the outside world, all in accordance with the policies
chosen by the operating system's designer. In other words, an operating
system controls the resources of a computer system and the
communications between elements of the computing system. [...]"

I will not write down the whole section 1.2, but you do get an idea
what the job of an operating system is, as opposed to an application
program like TB. Each member of the MS-Windows family is an operating
system, so are the unix variants. A kernel is part of an operating
system, but some computer systems might have only a kernel, which will
function as a "light-weight" OS.

No way will an application be allowed to fiddle around on the
harddisk. It will call a service of the OS, called an interrupt, and
ask the OS to handle disk I/O (reading/writing). Same with the memory
management: an app will request memory space from the memory manager
(part of the OS), and that one will decide what to do: swap, assign,
fragment, whatever, or say "no free memory available". As you pointed
out correctly, the error message from the OS to TB must be handled in
such a way that TB will report this error; right now it seems TB is
surprised, violates access (i.e. attempts to write to a sector of the
memory that is assigned otherwise), or simply loses the data. This, I
agree, must be dealt with, and this is a job for our two developers.
;-)

I think we should continue any discussions about OS's and resources on
TBOT.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.46d
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 
using an Intel Celeron 366Mhz, 128MB RAM



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[tracer]

Hello Thomas Fernandez,
On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:04:23 +0800 GMT your local time,
which was Saturday, October 07, 2000, 9:04:23 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Thomas Fernandez wrote:


> Hi John,

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:12:41 +0100GMT (07/10/2000, 04:12 +0800GMT),
> John Sullivan wrote:

JS>> I'll also point out that the above generalisation does not always
JS>> hold. "Resource" is a very wide term with multiple
JS>> interpretations.

> Not according to what I was taught.

JS>> As is "operating system".

> Again I was taught something different.

JS>> If the resource in question was your bank balance for example, you
JS>> wouldn't expect the bank's computers to apply interest/enter
JS>> transactions directly in the OS kernel. (At least I hope not!)
JS>> That's in no way an analogy, it's a real example.

> The resource is the bank account (not the bank balance), and this is a
> database, i.e. a file on disk. I wouldn't want anything *but* the OS's
> I/O subsystem to touch it. The OS (and thus, in this case, it's I/O
> subsystem) provides services to applications. No application is
> allowed to do that by itself. Resource sharing is not an easy task
> which involves scheduling, semaphores, signalling and all kinds of
> things I will have to re-read this weekend for the exam next week.
> :-(

JS>> I've not yet run it in a low-disk situation. I *hope* it would be
JS>> intelligent enough not to download and delete all my mail off the
JS>> server, then drop it into a black hole because there was no space left
JS>> locally.

> Agree. ;-)

same here but I seem to remember original post was saying it was
running windows 98, not NT and there is a world of difference between
NT and 98 or 2000 with regards to management of resources.
Or like one of the MS developers told me one time, windows doesnt leak
on its own but once you add programs to it.
Anyway, whatever the reason maybe the bat should require a minimum
amount of resources free and if it hasnt got them, shut down and tell
user.



Best regards,
 
tracer


-- 

Using theBAT 1.47 Beta/5 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request 
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hi John,

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:12:41 +0100GMT (07/10/2000, 04:12 +0800GMT),
John Sullivan wrote:

JS> I'll also point out that the above generalisation does not always
JS> hold. "Resource" is a very wide term with multiple
JS> interpretations.

Not according to what I was taught.

JS> As is "operating system".

Again I was taught something different.

JS> If the resource in question was your bank balance for example, you
JS> wouldn't expect the bank's computers to apply interest/enter
JS> transactions directly in the OS kernel. (At least I hope not!)
JS> That's in no way an analogy, it's a real example.

The resource is the bank account (not the bank balance), and this is a
database, i.e. a file on disk. I wouldn't want anything *but* the OS's
I/O subsystem to touch it. The OS (and thus, in this case, it's I/O
subsystem) provides services to applications. No application is
allowed to do that by itself. Resource sharing is not an easy task
which involves scheduling, semaphores, signalling and all kinds of
things I will have to re-read this weekend for the exam next week.
:-(

JS> I've not yet run it in a low-disk situation. I *hope* it would be
JS> intelligent enough not to download and delete all my mail off the
JS> server, then drop it into a black hole because there was no space left
JS> locally.

Agree. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.  

Message reply created with The Bat! 1.46d
under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998  
on a Pentium II/350 MHz.



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[John Sullivan]

On Wednesday 4 October 2000 tracer wrote:
John:
> Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
> low-memory situations.
>Oleg:
>> When  I  studied  at university I was taught that the program managing
>> resources  of a computer system is called 'operating system'. Resource
>> management is not a task of applications program.

And "manage resources" of various types is what the "operating system"
(in this case NT4) does do. (The "operating system" is actually the
runtime-environment of the application, so sort of includes some
things the C/Delphi/whatever runtime libraries do in between the
application and the OS kernel. But that's not really a significant
refinement, and at the end of the day, what the kernel says goes.)

I'm not saying TB should manage resources (at a low level) itself.
Just that when the nominated system resource manager for whatever
resource it is turns round and says "sorry, none left" that TB should
accept that and do the best job it can with what it's already got.
Popping an error and refusing to continue is acceptable. Generating an
Access Violation isn't, and neither is pretending all my mail is being
deleted with no indication that this *isn't* normal operation.

I'll also point out that the above generalisation does not always
hold. "Resource" is a very wide term with multiple interpretations. As
is "operating system". If the resource in question was your bank
balance for example, you wouldn't expect the bank's computers to apply
interest/enter transactions directly in the OS kernel. (At least I
hope not!) That's in no way an analogy, it's a real example.

> As I mentioned earlier that resources complained about may not
> be the resources causing the problems.

I've seen TB respond badly to other shortages too - mainly to lack of
GDI resources due to other apps allocating far too many icons or DCs.

I've not yet run it in a low-disk situation. I *hope* it would be
intelligent enough not to download and delete all my mail off the
server, then drop it into a black hole because there was no space left
locally.

In this particular case I'm pretty sure that memory, as in the sum of
real RAM and swapfile on my system, was the resource that ran out.

Shrug. Any allocation function can potentially fail, and this
shouldn't be treated as an end-of-the-universe let's die now situation
by any significant application. It's *going* to happen in the real
world, and TB should be prepared for it.

> I mean people say 'memory' but when that many things are running as
> quoted it can be anything and that means only person to track it down
> is owner of that system.

I did do. As I originally said, Task Manager was reporting zero free
virtual memory. I know from experience what the symptoms of other
resource shortages are, and everything else looked OK.

John
-- 
you gave me something that i could touch in a world where i'd had too much
something i could feel with my broken hands full of lost ideals but soon i'm
returning to you my friend and we'll go where the rivers end in the silver sea
and i'll carry you if you carry me

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[Karin Spaink]

On 04-10-2000 at 19:34, tracer kindly wrote:

> reminds me, I was intrigued by the link you posted a while back.
> Is  http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/images/write.html  really your photo??

Yes.


- K -

-- 

He's not the worst actor I've ever seen but not everybody 
can be Jean Claude Van Damme. 
  - Andrew Dorman on Swans list, 1999-10-15



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[tracer]

Hello Oleg Zalyalov,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:13:03 +0500 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, October 04, 2000, 1:13:03 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Oleg Zalyalov wrote:


> Hello, the Bat! list recipients,

> Wednesday, October 04, 2000, Karin Spaink wrote to tracer about
> Major Panic:

 Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
 low-memory situations.

>>> Arent all these tasks a bit much for a lousy OS like windows???(g)

KS>> That's irrelevant. The original question is: shouldn't TB
KS>> warn you when it notices its resources are running low, and
KS>> allow you to close it _elegantly_.

> When  I  studied  at university I was taught that the program managing
> resources  of a computer system is called 'operating system'. Resource
> management is not a task of applications program.

agreed (g)
Its what they tought in Texas Instruments and IBM as well
Obviously Billy never heard of the word resources.
As I mentioned earlier that resources complained about may not
be the resources causing the problems.
I mean people say 'memory' but when that many things are running as
quoted it can be anything and that means only person to track it down
is owner of that system.


Best regards,
 
tracer


-- 

Using theBAT 1.47 Beta/5 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request 
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[tracer]

Hello Karin Spaink,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 02:57:53 +0200 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, October 04, 2000, 7:57:53 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Karin Spaink wrote:


> On 04-10-2000 at 01:14, tracer kindly wrote:
>> John Sullivan wrote:


>>> Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
>>> low-memory situations.

>> Arent all these tasks a bit much for a lousy OS like windows???(g)

> That's irrelevant. The original question is: shouldn't TB
> warn you when it notices its resources are running low, and
> allow you to close it _elegantly_.


As windows is the one allocating resources its very relevant.
The OS is the thing doing that as they will teach you in any basic
course computer science.
The Bat may not be able to see that supposed memory isnt around
anymore...   It may not even BE the memory but handles and other
things being allocated.
If one runs a lot of tasks as I do as well, 98 just doesnt do it and
blaming it on programs running in an unsuitable environment isnt
really helpful. Run it with same memory / hardware and loading under
NT and see if it behaves better, if it does, blame 98.
The example tasks as mentioned are kind of optimistic...


>> I myself am very happy to have moved to 2000, It does allow shutdowns
>> much easier and crashes much less.

> That is rather beside the point.

It IS the point. if you try to ride in the tour the france on a normal
dutch lady bicycle and obviously come last, the fault isnt that of
the bike OR the roads but of the driver.
And obviously getting annoyed at getting told is also irrelevant.


> Tracer, you seem to have a habit of answering questions by
> referring people to other software / OS's. You did it to me
> as well today. Since that is hardly helpful, I suggest you
> abstain from suggestions like this.

Why? its the truth.
Secondly, personal remarks off list please  so I can say what I think
(g) without upsetting the moderators.
If you donot like a helpful suggestion ignore it.And anyway, it
wasnt directed at you OR your system.
I ran 98 for many years, I was betatesting the thing and its by far less stable then 
2000.
I donot really like 2000 either but then we havent got really a
choice. But in comparison, ignoring what doesnt work, its many times
better. If you havent run a heavy loaded system under 2000, please stay
out of the argument as you cannot compare it yourself. And if it comes
to software problems I donot think you have the background anyway.

If someone is overloading  an OS in a way it will never run happy, I
tell them that.  Send that list of tasks running to MS and see what
they say... Amount of memory isnt the only thing which is important
either.

My job has involved computers for many years and if people donot
listen to well meant advice, not my problem, I donot have to sort the
mess out as I donot get paid for it(g).

No need anyway to try to stir me up, I just enter a filter... and many
years in computer development/support have left me with the skin of a "polite"
elephant...

reminds me, I was intrigued by the link you posted a while back.
Is  http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/images/write.html  really your photo??

Best regards,
 
tracer


-- 

Using theBAT 1.47 Beta/5 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request 
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[Karin Spaink]

On 04-10-2000 at 01:14, tracer kindly wrote:
> John Sullivan wrote:


>> Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
>> low-memory situations.

> Arent all these tasks a bit much for a lousy OS like windows???(g)

That's irrelevant. The original question is: shouldn't TB
warn you when it notices its resources are running low, and
allow you to close it _elegantly_.

> I myself am very happey to have moved to 2000, It does allow shutdowns
> much easier and crashes much less.

That is rather beside the point.

Tracer, you seem to have a habit of answering questions by
referring people to other software / OS's. You did it to me
as well today. Since that is hardly helpful, I suggest you
abstain from suggestions like this.



- K -

-- 

"Thank god I have full control over ashtrays. Don't know 
where my life would be without that skill." 
   - Scientology escapee looking back upon his old religion.



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Major Panic

[tracer]

Hello John Sullivan,
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:45:07 +0100 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, October 04, 2000, 3:45:07 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
John Sullivan wrote:



> He's in the army, you know.

> Something I've noticed a couple of times is how ungraceful TB is in
> low-memory situations. Microsoft have things to say about this. (Most
> of their own apps, and virtually all of anyone else's, fail to follow
> these guidelines, but that doesn't stop them being good guidelines.)
> They say it shouldn't cause loss of data, or the application to
> out-right crash. The user should always be able to save to disk (disk
> space allowing) and gracefully shut down the application, no matter
> how tight things get. Out of memory situations happen in the real
> world. A serious application has to just deal.

> I'd just received some mail at one point today. I had 3 instances of
> MSDEV running, about 10 browser (IE) windows, 5 or so explorer
> windows, an InstallShield, 4 command prompts, 5 telnet sessions to
> various places, Acrobat reader, the usual assortment of system tray
> utilities and probably a few other applications too. And TB, of
> course. I wasn't particularly paying attention to the number of apps
> running at the time - it fitted on one row of the taskbar so I wasn't
> bothered.

Arent all these tasks a bit much for a lousy OS like windows???(g)
I myself am very happey to have moved to 2000, It does allow shutdowns
much easier and crashes much less.



Best regards,
 
tracer


-- 

Using theBAT 1.47 Beta/5 with Windows NT
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request 
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org