How come you can not use more than 126GB of a 1.5TB diskdrive with LabVIEW Real Time?

[kmcdevitt]

---

Coq rouge wrote:

Here is a list explaining which RTOS is used by Labview

http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/D85F9139AEB88F188625745700569E8D

---

 

Good for you too Rouge.

However, don't you think that NI should fix this 6 year old bug.

I think that they must have known about it for some time now.

We have put it to a vote.

I votes YES, that NI should fix the 126GB LV RT bug.

Have not got Dennis's vote yet.

What's you vote Rouge? 

McKevin.  

[Dennis_Knutson]

It's really not a bug. It's a limitation of the rtos. There is a later version of vxworks and perhaps there is support for bigger hard drives there but perhaps not. I'm not all that familiar with the os but I've worked at a couple places where the os was used on products and none of them required anything close to that amount of storage. You've also got to realize that to use a newer rtos, there would have to be significant testing done by NI to verify nothing is broken. The amount of testing may not justify switching os versions.

I think the first thing I would do would be to investigate vxworks itself to see when or if they added support for large hard drives. If they have, then you and other RT users can start lobbying NI to adopt the new version.

[kmcdevitt]

---

Dennis Knutson wrote:

It's really not a bug. It's a limitation of the rtos. There is a later version of vxworks and perhaps there is support for bigger hard drives there but perhaps not. I'm not all that familiar with the os but I've worked at a couple places where the os was used on products and none of them required anything close to that amount of storage. You've also got to realize that to use a newer rtos, there would have to be significant testing done by NI to verify nothing is broken. The amount of testing may not justify switching os versions.

I think the first thing I would do would be to investigate vxworks itself to see when or if they added support for large hard drives. If they have, then you and other RT users can start lobbying NI to adopt the new version.

---

 

---

Dennis Knutson wrote: 

It's really not a bug.

---

Now Dennis, please visit this website which I referenced in my original post.

http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/E7E2F5657B6026358625750B007201A6?OpenDocument

It is entitled:"LabVIEW Real-Time Module causes disk corruption on hard drives greater than 126 GiB"

Seriously Dennis, please explain to me and the rest of us how this is "really not a bug." 

 

 

 

[Dennis_Knutson]

Seriously,

It's a bug in the rtos and not in LabVIEW and that is what everyone has been trying to say. It clearly states that the source of the problem is phar lap. It seems that the latest versions of RT use vxworks. I'm not sure what it would take to change the rtos but that might be worthwhile investigating. 

[kmcdevitt]

Dennis, the Knight of NI,

So, can you find it within yourself to actually make a vote publicly in this forum?

Vote YES to have NI fix their LabVIEW RealTime disk corruption bug.

Or vote NO.

Come on Dennis, you be the second person to make a vote.

You could beet the Ravans Fan and the Coq Rouge as far as voting is concerned. 

Kevin.

[RavensFan]

My vote.  It is NOT a bug.  Not for LV Real-Time.  Perhaps it is a bug for the RTOS according to that KB document.

You still haven't indicated whether there is a more advanced version of the RTOS that has support for larger harddrives than the version NI is currently using.

Yes, large hard drives of 1 TB have been around a year or so.  And greater than 100+ GB more than 4 or 5 years.  But that doesn't mean the RTOS has to stay on the cutting edge of supporting large hard drives.  Real time systems are intended to be desktop replacements.  They are designed for determinism.  I'm sure larger and larger hard drives must have some effect on reducing that determinism.

If you really need that large of a hard drive, perhaps you need to rethink your architecture.  Have a regular windows computer handle the storage on large hard drives and periodically pass the data off the 126 GB hard drive on the real time computer to the non-deterministic Windows computer with super sized hard drive.

[SamT]

I vote "no", we should encorage people to use smaller drives and be thankful for what they have.

[Coq_Rouge]

You are into something here. Besides th OP has not mentioned if this disk size limitation creates any trouble for his application.

[RavensFan]

---

Ravens Fan wrote:

 Real time systems are intended to be desktop replacements. 

---

Rereading this thread and my previous post, I meant to say that real-time systems aren't intended to be desktop replacements.

[James_R]

why would you need more than 126G of space for a real-time application?

I vote No