|
No, because you're not looking in the right place to measure the memory consumption.
Yes, there is an overhead for using the .NET Framework and no you can't get rid of it.
Now, like most other people, you probably looked in the Task Manger to see how much RAM was allocated to your process. This is NOT how much memory your process is actually using. The .NET Framework execution environment is a virtual machine with it's own Memory Manager. The .NET Memory Manager grabs a rather large block of memory for your application. Even if you're not using it. This is because it can quickly allocate object on the managed heaps, as opposed to grabbing unmanaged memory, adding it to the managed pool, then allocating your object.
Just because the Task Manager says that your application is taking up X amount of memory, doesn't mean the your application is actually using it. It's RESERVED as far as the .NET Memory Manager is concerned.
Now, on Win98, the memory requirements for using the .NET Framework is at least 32MB of RAM, with 96MB being the recommended minimum. .NET Framework System Requirements[^]
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your answer...
So you say that because of the large amount of memory avaliable on my machine the framework pre-allocates more (just in case), and that on other machines (with much lesser memory) the framework will pre-allocate lesser... This is a good news for me.
Now I have another question...is there possible to convert .Net code (a binary file) into Machine code, but not at execution time. I mean are thare any compilers capable of converting a .Net application into a standard application (exporting all the used libraryes, or whatever it neads)?
I hope I understand...because is a rough world out there...
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I assume you are looking for a way to run your code without a framework!
try Thinstall Thinstall HP
I used it for some tests and it works quite fine. But i think "normal" people wont buy it because of the very high price!
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody knowes an application that is under a free license which can do a result like Thinstall?
Or an free obfuscation tool?
Or should I reorinet my programming skils to develop such applications as the ones mentioned above?
I hope we understand...because is a rough world out there...
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad Stanciu wrote:
is there possible to convert .Net code (a binary file) into Machine code, but not at execution time.
Yes and no. The .NET Framework comes with a tool call NGEN that will do just that. But! It converts the code to VERY processor specific code, on the processor that it's running on. Say you compile this code on a Pentium IV Step 5. In all likelyhood, it won't run on a Pentium III or and AMD chip. Now you'll have to generate code for each type of processor, and version of, out there.
Completely impractical...
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think an article on Virtual memory and .NET Memory management would be a good idea? This is not the first time someone mistook Task Manager memory values to be the actual memory consumption of the application.
Regards
Senthil
_____________________________
My Blog | My Articles | WinMacro
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it would. But I don't have the time to write it, or more to the point, support it afterwards.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Is there an easy way to just get the abbreviated for of the current time zone, as opposed to the whole name written out?
And can this be done in Daylight Saving Time as opposed to Standard Time.
So I get EDT instead of Eastern Daylight Time or Eastern Saving Time.
Thanks!
RABB17
|
|
|
|
|
I was recently looking for something like this and didn't find anything. If you absolutely need the abbreviation, you may have to create an array or enum listing them all and do the conversion yourself based on TimeZone.CurrentTimeZone.StandardName.
|
|
|
|
|
Now we have Monoppix, a linux powered with mono, the open source CLI implementation.
www.monoppix.com
Eduardo Diaz
Dark Side Programming"
|
|
|
|
|
Ok! I have a .NET (C#) app that I'm having a problem running on a Win 2003 box from a different Win 2003 box. I mean files physically are installed on that second win 2003 server, and I'm trying to start it on this first one. I get security error. I know about that .NET framework wizard that allows you to adjust .NET level of protection to internet/intranet/trusted and so on but that doesn't help.
This doesn't happen on XP/2000. Any ideas!
Thanks a lot in advance!
Please help! It's very urgent!
|
|
|
|
|
Code comming from a network source runs under a lot more restrictions than if you were to launch the exact same code from the local hard drive. Use the .NET Framework configuration tool in your Administrative Tools folder to increase the trust for that code running from a network zone.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
I know it is possible to enable your .NET applications to use Microsoft .NET Passport.
Yeah, but ... how to do that? It is free of charge or a subscription is needed?
If anyone knows something, please help!
Thanks
[ITA] Tozzi ha ragione: Gaia si sta liberando di noi.
[ENG] Tozzi is right: Gaia is obliterating us.
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to start by reading the Business Implementation[^] section of the .NET Passport SGK documentation.
AFAIK, there is no subscription fee. But there may be a compliance checkout and fee before your site is allowed to go into production. I have no idea what that charge might be.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm... it seems to be a mystery. However, thanks a lot, you have completely *resized* my problem.
[ITA] Tozzi ha ragione: Gaia si sta liberando di noi.
[ENG] Tozzi is right: Gaia is obliterating us.
|
|
|
|
|
Is is possible to access a USB Flash drive / disk from the .NET framework.
I want to be able to detect when a Flash drive has been inserted, write to a CF and then allow the user to safely remove it.
Will .NET 2.0 have this capability?
Thanks,
Liam
|
|
|
|
|
When you put in the computer doesn't it just show up as "Removable Storage" or something? It's acting like a hard drive, so if you just want to save/read files on it, just use the normal steps.
/\ |_ E X E GG
|
|
|
|
|
When I boot I will boot directly to my application and bypass the standard windows environment. There will be no task bar available to the user.
So I have to mimic what is done in the task bar in a programmatic way within the C# code.
Thanks,
Liam
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Everybody !
Does anybody know, why in some articles here, and also in VS.NET -generated Databound form the following logic is used to save DataSet changes to database:
SaveChanges(){
DataSet datasetWithChanges=dataSetUsedByControls.GetChanges();
if (datasetWithChanges != null)
{
SaveChangesToDB(datasetWithChanges); // function where adapters save changes to db.
dataSetUsedByControls.Merge(datasetWithChanges);
dataSetUsedByControls.AcceptChanges();
}
}
I tend to use:
SaveChanges(){
if (dataSetUsedByControls.HasChanges())
{
SaveChangesToDB(dataSetUsedByControls); // function where adapters save changes to db.
dataSetUsedByControls.AcceptChanges();
}
}
So why GetChanges - apply them and then merge with original dataset ? We can simply pass the originald ataset to adapter and changes will also be saved.
Can anyone explain why Microsoft has implemented the first variant it it's data-bound form wizard, and also why some articles use this variant as well ? Where is the trick ?
For example here:
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/PracticalGuideDataGrids4.asp[^]
-- modified at 6:13 Tuesday 30th August, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
DataSet newbie wrote:
DataSet datasetWithChanges=dataSetUsedByControls.GetChanges();
The dataset "datasetWithChanges" is a new dataset that only has the records from the "dataSetUsedByControls" that actually has changes. Therefore you when the execute the
SaveChangesToDB(datasetWithChanges); //Notice it is the smaller dataset being sent
less network traffic is generated and therefore faster performance. Then the datasets are merged. Your way sends the entire ds back including all the records that do not have any changes to them.
hth
Al
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, and Stop !
We should clear out the configuration where the code works (I had to write it in my first post probably):
If this is a Local Windows Forms application, then dataset and data adapter are on the same machine, so
during SaveChangesToDB(dataSetUsedByControls); //full dataset
dataset is processed locally throught the adapter and adapter applies only changed data to datasource.
If I understand you, you talk about some distributed application, where dataset and dataadapter are separated through some communication channel, right ?
So If I did understand you correctly this means:
1.Use GetChanges-Update-Merge for Distributed applications
2.Use direct Update from Full Dataset in local applications (this will even have some performance gain, because we avoid creation of new dataset and, later, Merge)
right ?
|
|
|
|
|
MSDN states that on the acceptchanges method ALL rows of each table are updated. So in my situation, which you are correct is distributed, I extract a smaller dataset to send to a webservice. The webservice hooks the dataset into the dataadapter and performs the update.
IMHO, on a local app then I would probably find out how much data actually got changed, if a small amount (<20% perhaps) then create a new dataset and only process it. But if a significant amount (>70% ?) then why waste the resources of creating a new dataset, just update with the acceptchanges like you are doing.
Al
|
|
|
|
|
The truth is somewhere near.
Generally I think that .GetChanges has sence for distributed case.
The costs are:
Case with Merge:
GetChanges (full iteration through full Dataset) fi
Update (iteration through subset) si
Merge (iteration through Full Dataset + subset) fi+si
totally fi+si+fi+si=2*fi+2*si
Case with direct update:
Update - full iteration
AcceptChanges - full iteration
totally 2*fi
Also look here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlrfSystemDataDataSetClassMergeTopic2.asp?frame=true[^]
Thanks !
Andrei
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway - the initial question is now more or less clear !
Thanks !
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
