Bryan Pope wrote: > > One thing is clear: forget Windows :) > HA! Are you sure? ;) Positively. > > > > #### Linux ???? > > > I had read once about a true real-time version of Linux. But since I don't > remember the web address that won't help... That'd be RT-Linux. However, it won't be much of help. See below for details. > > > I think you can safely rule out *any* multitasking system. It introduces > > > latencies and delays which are clearly unacceptible. > > > > What about VxWorks (or any other *hard* RT system)? I would not rule that > > out "per se". (Although, I don't think it would be highly available at the > > hobbyist's...) > > > What about QNX? It is free*, fast and *real-time*. You can DL the CD ISO > from http://get.qnx.com But it won't be fast enough. QNX claims to be very fast (faster than VxWorks, for instance) by guaranteeing a 6 us maximum response time unless I'm mistaken. That is a *multitude* of the allowed deviation. Heck, QNX claims to have a *context switch* time of only .55 us when running on a Pentium III. Apart from the fact that the actual context switch is just a part of the whole aspect of response time, even the bare .55 us is *way* too much (And a Pentium III is a very fast machine..) "true realtime" and "true multitasking" are mutually exclusive. You can go a fair deal (See QNX or RT-Linux), as long as your service frequencies and latencies are in the millisecond (or at least a reasonable fraction of a millisecond) area, and as long as your real-time applications are mutally tuned. RT-systems a la VxWorks, RTLinux and QNX are very interesting, and very powerful, but not quite up to this job. Sorry to dissapoint you.. -- Martijn van Buul - Pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/ Geek code: G-- - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333 Kees J. Bot: The sum of CPU power and user brain power is a constant. - This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.