Tricks of the trade - Optimisation

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.porting
1

message unavailable

2

pete@qnx.com wrote:

In qdn.public.porting Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

Miguel Simon wrote:

Hi…

Does any one know if there is a such a thing as a two (2) processor
PC104??

We have a solution based on a dual ported memory
board (PC104 board with two
seperate bus interfaces, 32Kb memory, mailbox
interrupts) … two CPU (or more) can communicate
throughout the DPM board ( a Net.dpm driver must
still be ported … but it is not a big issue)

I’m not sure.

I’m sure … did it already for a cPCI shared
memory backplane.

Armin

3

pete@qnx.com wrote:

In qdn.public.porting Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

Miguel Simon wrote:

Hi…

Does any one know if there is a such a thing as a two (2) processor
PC104??

We have a solution based on a dual ported memory
board (PC104 board with two
seperate bus interfaces, 32Kb memory, mailbox
interrupts) … two CPU (or more) can communicate
throughout the DPM board ( a Net.dpm driver must
still be ported … but it is not a big issue)

I’m not sure.

Why do you think so? I did it already for an
other system …

It’s just that I mentioned the recent rash of crossposts to the people who
maintain the newsgroups, and they said they were already thinking about
curtailing the ability to crosspost.

And what’s the motivation for your cross posting
??

Armin

4

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

It’s just that I mentioned the recent rash of crossposts to the people who
maintain the newsgroups, and they said they were already thinking about
curtailing the ability to crosspost.

And what’s the motivation for your cross posting
??

Replying to a cross posted article.

5

Pete,

I see you point. IMHO, it should be sufficient to
do cross postings over a
maximum of two groups … if it is really
neccessary.

Armin



pete@qnx.com wrote:

In qdn.public.porting Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

We have always had a policy of asking our senior developers to monitor
the newsgroups and answer questions. This was generally a matter of each
of them spending half an hour a day going through the groups and looking for
issues that fall into their area of responsibility.

Cross posting increases the number of messages, and requires a bit more
thought on the part of the senior developers to mentally filter out cross
posts, and if they need to go back and provide further feedback in finding
which of the cross posted posts was turned into an actual thread. The amount
of time it takes to go through the newsgroups has increased lately, partly
due to the newness of RTP and a high number of new users, but also partly due
to more cross posting.

Our policy is now that monitoring the newsgroups is optional for senior
developers and that issues that need to be addressed by them will be bought
to their attention by tech support people.

Most of the senior developers are still monitoring the newsgroups, but if
the signal to noise ratio becomes too low (due to cross posting or too much
`advocacy’ type non-technical content), the quality of responses you get
here will become diluted over time as the senior people simply tune out.

I think that if you are tempted to cross post because it’s too difficult to
categorize your issue into one of the existing groups, suggest a new group
on the advocacy channel.

If you are tempted to cross post because you think it will get you more
attention, make sure that the issue is really worth cross posting.

And people who cross post at the drop of a hat will quickly become the boy
who cried wolf in the minds of most of the developers here.

6

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

Pete,

I see you point. IMHO, it should be sufficient to
do cross postings over a
maximum of two groups … if it is really
neccessary.

Thanks Armin…

I don’t think they are going to shut down crossposting because there
are times when it is convenient, and I think everyone using these groups
is reasonable enough to not use it innapropriately.

We’re also getting a handle on the new versions of our newsreaders so
that when we reply, we don’t automatically reply to all the originating
groups.

7

Hi…

I must agree. I’d like to follow a stream to conclusion. Most(? I
certainly do not) people do not have time to re-read cross-posts.

Miguel.


Paul Russell wrote:

I hate cross posting within qdn.** and comp.os.qnx
as I can’t properly follow the answer threads…

If separate streams of answers start up in each group,
how can you follow it to a clean conclusion?

I vote to block cross-posting.

I’d also like to see comp.os.qnx split into comp.os.qnx.qnx4 comp.os.qnx.qnxrtp
and the old comp.os.qnx blocked from new messages, but reatined for searches (via dejanews)
-Paul

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message news:3A152166.A7513A45@web_.de…


Warren Peece wrote:

Well, my opinion would be that I find it annoying to read the same post in two
or three different newsgroups “ON INN.QNX.COM”.

A good news reader marks the cross posted message
in all targeted groups after reading one of it …
that happens at least if you are using the news
reader of Netscape.

Armin

8

Another problems appeared meanwhile, so look at

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=379483&aid=504799&group_id=23725

everybody interested in it.


Piotr