01-09-2025 07:33 AM
Hi.
I have a Windows 10 computer that has two physical processors, each with 32 cores. Both are operating correctly and are identified by the Task Manager. However, when using a Timed Loop in LabVIEW, associating values for the input "Processor" greater than or equal to 32 (cores of the second processor), the error “-825 Invalid CPU Specified for timed structure.” is returned. I have also checked LabVIEW's affinity with this second processor via the Task Manager.
01-09-2025 08:22 AM - edited 01-09-2025 08:24 AM
@RafaelFalcaro wrote:
Hi.
I have a Windows 10 computer that has two physical processors, each with 32 cores. Both are operating correctly and are identified by the Task Manager. However, when using a Timed Loop in LabVIEW, associating values for the input "Processor" greater than or equal to 32 (cores of the second processor), the error “-825 Invalid CPU Specified for timed structure.” is returned. I have also checked LabVIEW's affinity with this second processor via the Task Manager.
Yes, you're perfectly right, (I guess because of this kb and timed loop is slightly related to RT):
But usually you don't need timed loop as long as simple while loops (56 loops for 56 cores in my case) can utilize PC up to 100%:
Or simple parallel for-loop the same:
01-09-2025 09:21 AM
From what I understand Timed loops are not really appropriate for desktop LabVIEW applications because Windows is not a real time operating system.
01-09-2025 09:33 AM
@RTSLVU wrote:
From what I understand Timed loops are not really appropriate for desktop LabVIEW applications because Windows is not a real time operating system.
They sometimes useful, but in very very rare cases. For example, you can use the fact that everything within given timed loop is single-threaded, feel difference:
But for parallel code execution multiple while loops, or parallel for-loops or multiple instances of parallel running SubVIs usually sufficient, there are no significant advantages to run the code on dedicated CPU, LabVIEW and Windows are OK with "load balancing".