|
I doubt that a Process will hold on to any of those when the Process exits, regardless of how it exits.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't bet on that - from experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not. It may depend on if you run the system out of resources first. My experience was killing a process that leaked handles like crazy. Once you exhaust the handle pool, Windows starts to loose it's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Windows starts to loose it's mind.
Which version of windows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
taibc wrote: I found out a way to do that by use the statement:Process.GetCurrentProcess().Kill();
There's no book that recommend thus. It might "feel" as a fast way to exit the app, but as you noticed, it doesn't exit nicely.
You might wanna research the difference between foreground and background-threads. I'll bet one of them is still running.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
taibc wrote: Do you know, how to dispose all resources after I close my C# application ?
Wrong question.
Presumably your application only has one process - if not then you must have started the other processes so stopping them is also required.
But excluding that then if your application (process) is still running after you "close" it then that means you started a thread that continues to run. So the solution is that when you "close" it that you must terminate the threads that you started.
And the terminology is not apt since it isn't a matter of "resources" - it is an application/process which has not terminated. Once the process terminates all of the resources are freed regardless of the action your application took.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Everybody,
i am struck with a project where i have to pass a message from pc to micro controller device (Ethernet to serial converter interfaced to micro controller).
cable which i use is straight pair. Ethernet serial converter has a ip address. using this ip address i need to trasfer the message. port number i am using is 23.
the microcontroller works fine because we have tested it in hyperterminal(os-windows 7) and microcontroller is able to sends & receive the messge and in hyperterminal it sends & recieve succcesfully .
i used the following code (windows application, c# language, .Net Framework 4.0) to implement it. but it is not working. can i get any sugession or sample code where i will know what is the mistake
private void Form_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
// Check the port value
if (textBoxPort.Text == "")
{
MessageBox.Show("Please enter a Port Number");
return;
}
string portStr = "23";
int port = System.Convert.ToInt32(portStr);
// Create the listening socket...
m_mainSocket = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork,
SocketType.Stream,
ProtocolType.Tcp);
IPAddress address = IPAddress.Parse("192.168.0.50");
IPEndPoint ipLocal = new IPEndPoint(address, port);
// Bind to local IP Address...
m_mainSocket.Bind(ipLocal);
// Start listening...
m_mainSocket.Listen(4);
// Create the call back for any client connections...
m_mainSocket.BeginAccept(new AsyncCallback(OnClientConnect), null);
UpdateControls(true);
}
catch (SocketException se)
{
MessageBox.Show(se.Message);
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try the other direction? Like from this app going into another PC running hyperterminal through your ethernet/serial adapter?
|
|
|
|
|
After creating a lot of objects and then freeing them in my code and calling GC.Collect(2) the memory footprint does not go back to the pre allocation point in the app.
Using a tool called VMMap (great tool by the way!) it show that the memory is in the GC's hands (out of the application's).
Is there a way to get around this?
A programmer walks into a bar and asks the bartender for 1.00000000000003123939 root beers. Bartender says, I'll have to charge you extra, that's a root beer float. Programmer says, better make it a double then.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is implementation-specific. The VM doesn't explicitly call free() on those objects. Instead, it caches the memory for further reuse in order to cope with malloc() overheads. But, if I leave my app idle for a while, the memory is slowly released. Same thing is also observed in Oracle's Java VM for windows.
Beauty cannot be defined by abscissas and ordinates; neither are circles and ellipses created by their geometrical formulas.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
Task Manager is showing you the memory the the .NET CLR has RESERVED for your application, not how much it's actually using. The same goes for VMMAP. Neither tool goes into any of the details of the managed runtime memory manager.
If you want to see how much memory your app is really using at any point in time, open PerfMon and use the .NET Memory counters in there.
The memory that your application uses, when freed, gets returned to the Managed Heap in the .NET CLR, not to Windows. This is because allocations for future objects are faster is there is memory available in the managed heap. If not, then a block of memory has to be allocated from Windows, put in the managed heap, then your object allocated. This takes more time.
Unless you're really worried about how much memory your app is actually using, you're worried about nothing. The .NET CLR memory manager is very good at it's job and tunes itself depending on how your app is running. It's constantly watching how your app allocates and frees memory and adjusts the size of the managed heap every once in a while. But, if Windows needs the memory back, the .NET CLR will happily return any memory it can to Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Dave!
The problem was in RaptorDB when I was inserting 100K docs into it which uses around 600Mb of ram, this was fixed by freeing internal cache data after saving to disk which brought it back down to around 150Mb, however restarting the app with the same data files only uses 70Mb and works like a charm, so I was perplexed where the difference was since I released all my cached data.
Anyway the problem of memory usage is fixed but I still get a nagging feeling about the difference.
A programmer walks into a bar and asks the bartender for 1.00000000000003123939 root beers. Bartender says, I'll have to charge you extra, that's a root beer float. Programmer says, better make it a double then.
|
|
|
|
|
That "diamond reply," imho, Dave, deserves to be enshrined in a Tip-Trick.
yours, Bill
~
“This isn't right; this isn't even wrong." Wolfgang Pauli, commenting on a physics paper submitted for a journal
|
|
|
|
|
I should do that. It's an answer that comes up time and time again.
The problem is how to get it to show up when a user does NOT Google for it! 
|
|
|
|
|
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers may help. I needed it in some cases, when I experieced OutOfMemory exceptions despite calling GC.Collect.
|
|
|
|
|
Do GC.Collect() for reasearch reasons and so on.
But for real life applications its not an good idea, because it blocks all threads.
I do GC.Collect() only on 32 Bit machince, in situations where i encounter a OutOfMemory Exception, or in situations where i know, that chances are very high that the next lines of code will run into out of memory.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello. I always wonder that how to keep users' GUI updated. I mean how a software should reflect its database fast and efficiently. I generally deal with this problem using a timer checking db every 20-30 seconds but i think it slows down my programs. I would prefer it like filesystemwatcher control. It realizes all files immmediately in folders and doesnt slow down applications at all.
|
|
|
|
|
leone wrote: I always wonder that how to keep users' GUI updated.
You're not the first with this idea, and there's a good reason why most applications don't behave that way.
leone wrote: I mean how a software should reflect its database fast and efficiently.
The software never loads the entire database with the user looking at the entire database. It's always a part of the data that the user looks at, and usually they work with a snapshot - not with data that changes under their cursor.
leone wrote: I generally deal with this problem using a timer checking db every 20-30 seconds but i think it slows down my programs.
How is it implemented? Just refetching the entire dataset? That'll not only slow down your program, it'll slow down the network. How about putting a timestamp in there that holds the last modification-datetime? You could fetch that every N seconds, and fetch the data once it changes.
leone wrote: I would prefer it like filesystemwatcher control. It realizes all files immmediately in folders and doesnt slow down applications at all.
The FSW does slow the machine down. You could put each table in a CSV file and host them from a directory - that way you could use the FSW with your data 
OTOH, you'd lose all the benefits from having a database.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Eddy. I generally dont keep sql connection open. I open it once i need. so to do what you told me, i have to open an sql connection, read a table (modification dates table) and close it again. When i do so in every 20 seconds, i have a concern that the application will slow down. I notice that some programs that i use at work reflect changes immediately. I dont think that they check this modification table every 1 second. I am curious about this.
|
|
|
|
|
leone wrote: I generally dont keep sql connection open.
Never said you did
leone wrote: When i do so in every 20 seconds, i have a concern that the application will slow down.
Yes, that will slow the app, the database-server and the network.
leone wrote: I notice that some programs that i use at work reflect changes immediately.
Not by pushing the entire database, and I doubt that the database pushes information to each connected client. You can poll as I already described, simulating the push.
leone wrote: I dont think that they check this modification table every 1 second.
It matters little how often they check that table; it's simply more efficient than fetching an entire table.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi leone. Some DBs, such as SqlServer, allow create files. So you could write a trigger that creates a file when a table was updated. Then with the FileSystemWatcher you can refresh the UI.
I hope that helps you.
|
|
|
|
|
code for window form application to change background color using random function
anser please
Regards
Pintu Kumar
|
|
|
|
|
Easy enough, it you just generate a random number for Red, Green and Blue values, then feed those to Color.From(int, int, int)[^] to get a Color back from it. You should know what to do with that I think.
No, we're not writing your code for you.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
