Re: preferred version of EMC
Posted by
r_fl_z@h...
on 2000-11-16 03:46:22 UTC
Terry:
hardware exist? Any support for choosing known stable hardware?
Particularly for the common denominator hardware, i.e. chipset combos
and video boards?
control only. I won't risk the interaction of additional processor
tasks. I'm attempting to install EMC, which has proved to be
difficult, because I believed it was a capable, well designed, FREE,
and proven system, in some release combinations. I continue to bore
the List, attempting to extract exactly which combination of releases
and upgrades I need to employ to build the most stable installation
that I can. All the while admitting that I am hobbled by a complete
lack of Linux experience.
Ron
> it may sound bad, but once the user understandsNo. That sounds great.
> the limitations of rtlinux and what to look for
> the entire system, hardware, linux, rtlinux, and
> emc can be made to work reliably and be stable.
> hardware selection is probably the least understoodGive up the details. Does some sort of reliability matrix for common
> item. there is alot of hardware out there that has
> bugs in the chipsets. these normally do not bother
> linux since most are understood to some extent. it
> is when rtlinux comes into play and takes over the
> interrupts that things get a bit strange/odd/unstable.
>
> to some degree this also applies to the cards
> that are placed in the computer. some cards have
> buggy hardware also, video cards are famous for
> their buggy bios, and "undocumented" features.
hardware exist? Any support for choosing known stable hardware?
Particularly for the common denominator hardware, i.e. chipset combos
and video boards?
>ok, this is what I need. Give it up EMC boy :)
> linux is solid. the latest kernel in the 2.0.x series
> is 2.0.38. it is stable but will not support the newer
> hardware. the latest kernel in the 2.2.x series is
> 2.2.17. the latest development kernel is linux-2.4.0-test10.
> depending on the hardware a person has will guide which
> kernel they will need to use.
> emc-0.9-25.tar.gz (sept 25th, 2000) release works ratherWhat is "sourceforge.net cvs" ? Dunno the meaning.
> well with linux-2.2.17, and rtlinux-2.2. i have some
> patches for rtlinux-2.2 which i need to get into
> emc sourceforge.net cvs.
> the bottomline is to test, test, test, and test again.I plan to protect the EMC environment by dedicating the machine to
> before using the system to do any real "chip" making
> put the entire system through "it's paces". pound on
> it. run emc/sim.run, have the cd-player playing your
> favourite cd, surf the web, play a graphic intense
> game, etc. think of ways to load the machine down in
> such a way to force interrupts on every card, hard drive,
> cd-rom/dvd/cd-rom burner. watch to see if the system
> "hangs". find or generate complex g-code programs and
> run emc/sim.run. have the backplot program running.
> if you have more than one computer and a network
> ftp entire harddrives to another machine. (and yes,
> i do do that.) nfs mount filesytems from the other
> machine copy files to it, diff the files, erase the
> files, copy them back. the goal is to find if/where
> the problems are, and they will not be found unless
> the entire system is pounded on.
control only. I won't risk the interaction of additional processor
tasks. I'm attempting to install EMC, which has proved to be
difficult, because I believed it was a capable, well designed, FREE,
and proven system, in some release combinations. I continue to bore
the List, attempting to extract exactly which combination of releases
and upgrades I need to employ to build the most stable installation
that I can. All the while admitting that I am hobbled by a complete
lack of Linux experience.
>Acknowledged.
> after all the testing, begin small, and watch the
> machine being controlled and the system like a hawk.
>
> the number one rule to follow at all times:
> is the machine being controlled and the computer
> system (hardware, linux, rtlinux, emc, etc) operating
> in a safe, reliable fashion so that the risk of personal
> injury is reduced to minimal levels?
>
> if the answer is no, go back to test, test, test,
> and test again.
>Thanks,
> if the answer is yes, keep the system at the level
> and think of ways to improve the level of safety.
Ron
Discussion Thread
Jon Elson
2000-11-15 23:07:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] preferred version of EMC
r_fl_z@h...
2000-11-16 00:30:35 UTC
Re: preferred version of EMC
r_fl_z@h...
2000-11-16 03:46:22 UTC
Re: preferred version of EMC
Hugh Currin
2000-11-16 08:10:08 UTC
Re: preferred version of EMC
Jon Elson
2000-11-16 12:08:12 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: preferred version of EMC