I've been trying to figure out this for a while and I'm getting more and more frustrated because the more I think about it the more confusing it gets.
The question is how to map in a database a relation of available options for a specific row. I came up with this computers example that I think it explains quite well what I'm trying to do
Let's say we want to design a database to store information about computers: what hardware devices are available for an specific computer architecture and also "instances" or products of those computers with a hardware options selected by the user
Option 1
With this approach, nothing prevents a user from selecting hardware for a computer that is not available for that particular architecture
As an example
computer_arch
1, x86
2, x64
hardware
1, 64 bits sound card
2, 32 bits sound car
computer_arch_hardware
(computer_arch_id, hardware_id)
1,2
2,1
Computer instance
serial_number,type,os
1,1,"Windows"
Computer_hardware
1,2 -> Computer of 32 bits assigned a 64bit compatible only hardware
Option 2
Another option would be to map the computer_instance_hardware relationship to the computer_arch_hardware
But with this approach we have redundancy because the "type" of the computer is repeated and, as far as I know this breaks normalization rules
Furthermore, even when there are no wrong linkages between arch and hardware device, you could easily add a x64 device (arch_64, device 64) to a 32 bits computer instance.
Option 3
And finally, to ensure the right amount of options is linked with the right architecture, we could replicate the type_id FK to point to both computer_arch_hardware, so all hardware is picked with its assigned architecture, and at the same time with computer_instance so we ensure the architecture_hardware option matchs the type of the computer. But I'm presume this is completely wrong and breaks any single normalization rule for databases
Any help would be appreciated.
Related
I am a physicist, and I had a revelation a few weeks ago about how I might be able to use my personal computer to get much finer control over laboratory experiments than is typically the case. Before I ran off to try this out though, I wanted to check the feasibility with people who have more expertise than myself in such matters.
The idea is to use the i/o ports---VGA, ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.---on the computer to talk directly to the sensors and actuators in the experimental setup. E.g. cut open one side of an ethernet cable (with the other end attached to the computer) and send each line to a different device. I knew a postdoc who did something very similar using a BeagleBone. He wrote some assembly code that let him sync everything with the internal clock and used the GPIO pins to effectively give him a hybrid signal generator/scope that was completely programmable. It seems like the same thing should be possible with a laptop, and this would have the additional benefit that you can do data analysis from the same device.
The main potential difficulty that I foresee is that the hardware on a BeagleBone is designed with this sort of i/o in mind, whereas I expect the hardware on a laptop will probably be harder to control directly. I know for example (from some preliminary investigation, http://ask.metafilter.com/125812/Simple-USB-control-how-to-blink-an-LED-via-code) that USB ports will be difficult to access this way, and VGA is (according to VGA 15 pin port data read and write using Matlab) impossible. I haven't found anything about using other ports like ethernet or speaker jacks, though.
So the main question is: will this idea be feasible (without investing many months for each new variation of the hardware), and if so what type of i/o (ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.) is likely to be the best bet?
Auxiliary questions are:
Where can I find material to learn how I might go about executing this plan? I'm not even sure what keywords to plug in on Google.
Will the ease with which I can do this depend strongly on operating system or hardware brand?
The only cable I can think of for a pc that can get close to this would be a parallel printer cable which is pretty much gone away. It's a 25 wire cable that data is spread across so that it can send more data at the same time. I'm just not sure if you can target a specific line or if it's more of a left to right fill as data is sent.
To use one on a laptop today would definitely be difficult. You won't find any laptops with parallel ports. There are usb to parallel cables and serial to parallel cables but I would guess that the only control you would have it to the usb or serial interface and not the parallel.
As for Ethernet, you have 4 twisted pair with only 2 pair in use and 2 pair that are extra.
There's some hardware that available called Zwave that you might want to look into. Zwave will allow you to build a network of devices that communicate in a mesh. I'm not sure what kind of response time you need.
I actually just thought of something that might be a good solution. Check out security equipment. There's a lot of equipment available for pc's that monitor doors, windows, sensors, etc. That industry might what your looking for.
I think the easiest way would be to use the USB port as a Human Interface Device (HID) and using a custom built PIC program and a PIC that includes the USB functionality to encode the data to be sent to the computer and in that way be able to program it independently from the OS due to the fact that all mayor OS have the HID USB functionality.
Anyways if you used your MIC/VGA/HDMI whatever other port you still need a device to encode the data or transmit it, and another program inside the computer to decode that data being sent.
And remember that different hardware has different software (drivers) that might decode the raw data in other odd ways rendering your IO hardware dependent.
Hope this helps, but thats why the USB was invented in the first place to make it hardware and os independent.
I need to read GPS coordinates using a VB.NET program directly from a GPS device connected to the computer via USB (bluetooth also OK but prefer USB). My constraints are:
The computer running the software is NOT connected to the internet. It is a stand-alone machine in a moving vehicle.
I need to be able to read GPS coordinates from the device while the vehicle moves and use the device to perform location-aware queries on a local database
The GPS device can be anything (e.g. Garmin GPS or GPS card without display), as long at it can be purchased off the shelf or over the internet.
The user group for this solution is quite small (about 40 users).
I have already checked out GPSGate (http://gpsgate.com/) and emailed my requirements to them. They replied, and I quote: "I am sorry but we have no product for you." (end of reply).
I also checked out Eye4Software) and tried using their demo product but it does not pick up my Garmin Nuvi via USB. They responded to my questions but unfortunately their OEM product is an ActiveX dll and I am looking for a .NET based solution.
So if anyone has a "home-grown" solution based on the .NET framework, that can be easily duplicated, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks!
Most of the USB GPS pucks will speak a standardized protocol called NMEA 0183. There are several .net protocols out there that decode this protocol, see here for some pointers to get started.
So, if when shopping around you just check that the device is able to generate NMEA you should be up and running in a minimum of time, and at a reasonable cost.
EDIT: a "gps puck" is a GPS receiver shaped more or less like a hockey puck, like this one
For in-car use there are specific versions that can be fixed onto the vehicle's roof
They are pretty common (many online shops carry them) but select them based on the chip that's inside, the popular Sirf Star 3 is still a solid performer, stable and accurate. I haven't had the chance to play with its successor, the Sirf Star 4 yet, and I'm not implying these are the only good chips around, only that I got most experience with this chip.
I am working on a research project to develop an OS for a many-core(1000+) chip. we are looking into implementing a virtual memory type system for memory permissions (read/write/execute) that would allow memory to be safely shared across cores.
basically we want a system that would allow us to mark a 'page' as being readable by some subset of cores writeable by another...etc. we are not going to be doing address translation (at least at this point) but we need a way to efficiently set and query permissions. it is going to be a software filled datastructure with a simple TLB style cache.
Our intuition is that simply replicating page tables for each core will be too expensive (in terms of memory usage).
what datastructures would be efficient for this kind of problem?
thanks
Have you looked at how common multi-core (2-12 core) CPU's address this problem?
Do you know where/when/why/how the solution that is used in these common multi-core CPU's -- will not scale to a 1,000+ cores?
In other words -- can you quantify what's wrong with the existing solution, which is working, and has been working, with common CPU's whose core count <= 12 ?
If you know that -- then the answer is closer than you think, because it just requires understanding how AMD/Intel solved the problem on a lesser scale -- and what's needed to make their solution work on a greater one (Maybe more memory for tables, algorithm tweaks, etc.)
Look at AMD's/Intel's data structures -- then build a software simulator for 1,000+ cores with those data structures, and see where/when/why and how your simulation fails -- if it fails...
Ideally build your simulator with a user-selectable number of cores, then TEST, TEST, TEST with different amounts of cores -- working your way up, noting bottlenecks along the way.
Your simulator should work EXACTLY as well as AMD (if you're using AMD data structures) or Intel (if you're using Intel data structures) -- at the same core count as one of their chips... because it should prove that THEY (AMD/Intel) are doing what they're doing correctly (because they are), and because that will help prove that your simulation program is doing it's simulation correctly -- at a specific number of cores.
Wishing you luck!
I am new to the locating hardware side of embedded programming and so after being completely overwhelmed with all the choices out there (pc104, custom boards, a zillion option for each board, volume discounts, devel kits, ahhh!!) I am asking here for some direction.
Basically, I must find a new motherboard and (most likely) re-implement the program logic. Rewriting this in C/C++/Java/C#/Pascal/BASIC is not a problem for me. so my real problem is finding the hardware. This motherboard will have several other devices attached to it. Here is a summary of what I need to do:
Required:
2 RS232 serial ports (one used all the time for primary UI, the second one not continuous)
1 modem (9600+ baud ok) [Modem will be in simultaneous use with only one of the serial port devices, so interrupt sharing with one serial port is OK, but not both]
Minimum permanent/long term storage: Whatever O/S requires + 1 MB (executable) + 512 KB (Data files)
RAM: Minimal, whatever the O/S requires plus maybe 1MB for executable.
Nice to have:
USB port(s)
Ethernet network port
Wireless network
Implementation languages (any O/S I will adapt to):
First choice Java/C# (Mono ok)
Second choice is C/Pascal
Third is BASIC
Ok, given all this, I am having a lot of trouble finding hardware that will support this that is low in cost. Every manufacturer site I visit has a lot of options, and it's difficult to see if their offering will even satisfy my must-have requirements (for example they sometimes list 3 "serial ports", but it appears that only one of the three is RS232, for example, and don't mention what the other two are). The #1 constraint is cost, #2 is size.
Can anyone help me with this? This little task has left me thinking I should have gone for EE and not CS :-).
EDIT: A bit of background: This is a system currently in production, but the original programmer passed away, and the current hardware manufacturer cannot find hardware to run the (currently) DOS system, so I need to reimplement this in a modern platform. I can only change the programming and the motherboard hardware.
I suggest buying a cheap Atom Mini-ITX board, some of which come with multi - 4+ RS232 ports.
But with Serial->USB converters, this isn't really an issue. Just get an Atom. And if you have code, port your software to Linux.
Here is a link to a Jetway Mini-Itx board, and a link to a 4 port RS232 expansion module for it. ~$170 total, some extra for memory, a disk, and a case and PSU. $250-$300 total.
Now here is an Intel Atom Board at $69 to which you could add flash storage instead of drives, and USB-serial converters for any data collection you need to do.
PC104 has a lot of value in maximizing the space used in 19" or 23" rackmount configurations - if you're not in that space, PC104 is a waste of your time and money, IMHO.
The BeagleBoard should have everything you need for $200 or so - it can run Linux so use whatever programming language you like.
A 'modern' system will run DOS so long as it is x86, I suggest that you look at an industrial PC board from a supplier such as Advantech, your existing system may well run unchanged if it adheres to PC/DOS/BIOS standards.
That said if your original system runs on DOS, the chances are that you do not need the horsepower of a modern x86 system, and can save money by using a microcontroller board using something fairly ubiquitous such as an ARM. Also if DOS was the OS, then you most likely do not need an OS at all, and could develop the system "bare-metal". The resources necessary just to support Linux are probably far greater than your existing application and OS together, and for little or no benefit unless you intend on extending the capability of the system considerably.
There are a number of resources available (free and commercial) for implementing a file system and USB on a bare-metal system or a system using a simple real-time kernel such as FreeRTOS or eCOS which have far smaller footprints than Linux.
The Windows embedded site ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/default.mspx )
has a lot of resources and links to hardware partners, distributors and development kits. There's even a "Spark" incubation project ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/community/spark/default.mspx )
What's also really nice about using windows ce is that it now supports Silverlight as a development environment.
I've used the jetway boards / daughter cards that Chris mentioned with success for various projects from embedded control, my home router, my HTPC front end.
You didn't mention what the actual application was but if you need something more industrial due to temperature or moisture constraints i've found http://www.logicsupply.com/ to be a good resource for mini-itx systems that can take a beating.
A tip for these board is that given your minimal storage requirements, don't use a hard drive. Use an IDE adapter for a compact flash card as the system storage or an SD card. No moving parts is usually a big plus in these applications. They also usually offer models with DC power input so you can use a laptop like or wall wart external supply which minimizes its final size.
This http://www.fit-pc.com/web/ is another option in the very small atom PC market, you'd likely need to use some USB converters to get to your desired connectivity.
The beagle board Paul mentioned is also a good choice, there are daughter cards for that as well that will add whatever ports you need and it has an on board SD card reader for whatever storage you need. This is also a substantially lower power option vs the atom systems.
There are a ton of single board computers that would fit your needs. When searching you'll normally find that they don't keep many interface connectors on the processor board itself but rather you need to look at the stackable daughter cards they offer which would provide whatever connections you need (RS-232, etc.). This is often why you see just "serial port" in the description as the final physical layer for the serial port will be defined on the daughter card.
There are a ton of arm based development boards you could also use, to many to list, these are similar to the beagle board. Googling for "System on module" is a good way to find many options. These again are usually a module with the processor/ram/flash on 1 card and then offer various carrier boards which the module plugs into which will provide the various forms of connectivity you need.
In terms of development, the atom boards will likely be the easiest if your more familiar with x86 development. ARM is strongly supported under linux though so there is little difficulty in getting these up and running.
Personally i would avoid windows for a headless design like your discussing, i rarely see a windows based embedded device that isn't just bad.
Take at look at one of the boards in the Arduino line, in particular the Arduino Mega. Very flexible boards at a low cost, and the Mega has enough I/O ports to do what you need it to do. There is no on-chip modem, but you can connect to something like a Phillips PCD3312C over the I2C connector or you can find an Arduino add-on board (called a "shield") to give you modem functionality (or Bluetooth, ethernet, etc etc). Also, these are very easy to connect to an external memory device (like a flash drive or an SD card) so you should have plenty of storage space.
For something more PC-like, look for an existing device that is powered by a VIA EPIA board. There are lot of devices out there that use these (set-top boxes, edge routers, network security devices etc) that you can buy and re-program. For example, I found a device that was supposed to be a network security device. It came with the EPIA board, RAM, a hard drive, and a power supply. All I had to do was format the hard drive, install Linux (Debian had all necessary drivers already included), and I had a complete mini-computer ready to go. It only cost me around $45 too (bought brand new, unopened on ebay).
Update: The particular device I found was an EdgeSecure i10 from Ingrian Networks.
ASIDE: Yes, this is can be considered a subjective question, but I hope to draw conclusions from the statistics of the responses.
There is a broad spectrum of computing devices. They range in physical sizes, computational power and electrical power. I would like to know what embedded developers think is the determining factor(s) that makes a system "embedded." I have my own determination that I will withhold for a week so as to not influence the responses.
I would say "embedded" is any device on which the end user doesn't normally install custom software of their choice. So PCs, laptops and smartphones are out, while XM radios, robot controllers, alarm clocks, pacemakers, hearing aids, the doohickey in your engine that regulates fuel injection etc. are in.
You might just start with wikipedia for a definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_system
"An embedded system is a computer system designed to perform one or a few dedicated functions, often with real-time computing constraints. It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts. "
Coming up with a concrete set of rules for what an embedded system is is to a large degree pointless. It's a term that means different things to different people -maybe even different things to the same people at different times.
There are some things that are pretty much never considered an embedded system, for example a Windows Desktop machine. However, there are companies that put their software on a Windows box - even a bog standard PC (maybe a laptop) - set things up so their application loads automatically and hides the desktop. They sell that as a single purposed machine that many people would call an embedded system (but many people wouldn't). Microsoft even sells a set of tools called Embedded Windows that helps enable these kinds of applications, though it's targeted more to OEMs who will customize the system at least somewhat instead of just putting it on a standard PC. Embedded Windows is used for things like ATM machines and many other devices. I think that most people would consider an ATM an embedded system.
But go into a 7-11 with an ATM that has a keyboard (I honestly don't know what the keyboard is for), press the right shift key 5 times and you'll get a nice Windows "StickyKeys" messagebox (I wonder if there's an exploit there - I sure hope not). So there's a Windows system there, just hidden and with some functionality removed - maybe not as much as the manufacturer would like. If you could convince it to open up notepad.exe somehow does the ATM suddenly stop being an embedded system?
Many, many people consider something like the iPhone or the iTouch an embedded system, but they have nearly as much functionality as a desktop system in many ways.
I think most people's definition of an embedded system might be similar to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of hard-core pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...
I consider an embedded system one where the software is rarely developed directly on the target system. This definition includes sophisticated embedded systems like the iPhone, and excludes primitive desktop systems like the Commodore 64. Not having the development tools on the target means you have to add 'reprogram device' to the edit-compile-run cycle. Debugging is also made more complicated. This encompasses most of the embedded "feel."
Software implemented in a device not intended as a general purpose computing device is an "embedded system".
Typically the system is intended for a single purpose, and the software is static.
Often the system interacts with non-human environmental inputs (sensors) and mechanical actuators, or communication with other non-human systems.
That's off the top of my head. Other views can be read at this embedded.com article
Main factors:
Installed in a fixed place somewhere (you can't carry the device itself around, only the thing it's built into)
The run a long time (often years) with little maintenance
They don't get patched often
They are small, use little power
Small or no display
+1 for a great question.
Like many things there is a spectrum.
At the "totally embedded" end you have devices designed for a single purpose. Alarm clocks, radios, cameras. You can't load new software and make it do something else. THere is no support for changing the hardware,
At the "totally non-embedded" end you have your classic PCs where everything, both HW and SW, can be replaced.
There's still a lot in between those extremes. Laptops and netbooks, for example, have minimally expandable HW, typically only memory and hard disk can be upgraded. But, the SW can be whatever you want.
My education was as a computer engineer, so my definition of embedded is hardware oriented. I draw the line at the MMU (memory management unit). If a chip has an MMU, it usually has off-chip RAM and runs an OS. If a chip does NOT have an MMU, it usually has on-board RAM and runs an RTOS, microkernel or custom executive.
This means I usually dismiss anything running linux, which is shortsighted. I admit my answer is biased towards where I tend to work: microcontroller firmware. So I am glad I asked this question and got a full spectrum of responses.
Quoting a paragraph I've written before:
An embedded system for our purposes is
a computer system that has a specific
and deterministic
functionality\cite{LamieReal}.
Typically, processors for embedded
systems contain elements such as
onboard RAM, special-purpose
processing elements such as a digital
signal processor, analog-to-digital
and digital-to-analog converters.
Since the processors have more
flexibility than a straightforward
CPU, a common term is microcontroller.