08-12-2008 07:03 AM
08-12-2008 07:09 AM
Yes, it would help if you post screenshots of the VI's. Or better yet, attach the VI's.
R
08-12-2008 07:29 AM
08-12-2008 07:44 AM
08-12-2008 08:05 AM
08-12-2008 08:40 AM
08-12-2008 09:19 AM
![]()
I'll start with the "low hanging fruit" and leave the real work for others.
Start by replacing all of you "wait Until Next MS Multiple" with the normal "Wait ms" version. The reasoning behind this suggestions is this. As the time required to do your processing increases, you will eventually get to the point where the work takes longer than the wait. So when a loop iteration time becomes 1.75 the specified wait value, you will have missed one of the multples and the function returns after only wait 0.25 of the specified value. So as the work-load grows, the breaks become shorter. The other aspect of the Wait until... is that if you are using wait values that have a common factor, the "Wait Unitl..." effectively sets up all of you threads to wake-up at the same time (the common multiple) and fight for the CPU rather than spreading the work out.
I'll let others comment on others things you should look at. But while you are waiting, you may want to review the posts I have linked in this Tag LabVIEW_Performance.
Ben
08-12-2008 09:26 AM
08-13-2008 12:46 AM
08-13-2008 02:53 AM