Thanks Liviu for your comments. You make me think
is that I have mixed functional and performance tests together. But I think they're indicative though not precise.
How do you see the command title suffers from a problem when using code with pipe.
The rem: it takes more time perhaps for the thing that you have discovered with the process monitor. Your tests are much more comprehensive and complete. Thank you.
However, before I read your comment I had already carried out tests under load. Even if I move on systems that are not non-server.
Unfortunately I do not have a multi-cpu/core and I can not test it thoroughly.
Yesterday I was able to run the code and I've tried what happens on my windows seven Monocore.
My project is a HEARTBEAT with minimum use of CPU / LATENCY using PING.
I am aware that another problem is the set /p with CR LF but for the moment it seems to work.
Code: Select all
(
start "" /B /realtime cmd /V:ON /Q /C"cmd /V:ON /Q /Cfor /l %%k in (0) do for %%l in (99 00) do (if "^^^^!time:~9,2^^^^!"=="%%l" (exit)) & start "" /B /realtime ping ::1 -n 135"
ping ::1 -n 4 >nul
start "" /B /realtime cmd /V:ON /Q /C"cmd /V:ON /Q /Cfor /l %%k in (0) do for %%l in (49 50) do (if "^^^^!time:~9,2^^^^!"=="%%l" (exit)) & start "" /B /realtime ping ::1 -n 135"
ping ::1 -n 4 >nul
start "" /B /realtime cmd /V:ON /Q /C"cmd /V:ON /Q /Cfor /l %%k in (0) do for %%l in (24 25) do (if "^^^^!time:~9,2^^^^!"=="%%l" (exit)) & start "" /B /realtime ping ::1 -n 135"
ping ::1 -n 4 >nul
start "" /B /realtime cmd /V:ON /Q /C"cmd /V:ON /Q /Cfor /l %%k in (0) do for %%l in (74 75) do (if "^^^^!time:~9,2^^^^!"=="%%l" (exit)) & start "" /B /realtime ping ::1 -n 135"
) | start "" /B /realtime find "<" | start "" /B /realtime cmd /v:on /c"for /l %%k in (1,1,1000) do @(set/p "l=" & echo tick: !time! )"
I have been studying a system of resynchronization light load.
The frequency is 4 ticks per second and requires a resynchronization with high usage of cpu.
With greater frequency the cpu usage time for resynchronization should be less and also the error is smaller.
Ping produces minimum 500ms, with this system I can get down to 50 ms or less (at no load system, for the moment).
ref:
Watchdog_timereinstein1969