RTOS's and Windows CE question

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
I am evaluating embeddable operating systems for a client
who will be using one in a new commercial product in the
industrial control market, sales of which are expected to
be many thousands per year.

The product will be truly embedded having no display
capability, but will contain both an ethernet port, and a
USB port, to allow for customer configuration etc.
Although the product has no 'hard' real-time requirement,
the worst case response times should be less than one or
two milliseconds, under all operating conditions (that
includes ethernet activity).

Amongst a few alternatives (and despite my natural
inclinations :) Windows CE is on the list to be considered.
Any suggestions on which CE variant might be applicable
(e.g. CE 3, CE 4.0, CE 5.0, CE .NET)? Can CE considered
to be stable? Is it real-time? What about footprint?
Despite a Google search on this (and other) groups
surprisingly little objective opinion was unearthed with
regard to Win CE in embedded applications.

Any other RTOS suggestions welcome - cost is not the
major factor, performance, support, stability etc. is.

Mike Harding


Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which should be a warning flag that few people are using it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What microcontroller are you using? Do you have a RAM/ROM budget
already?


Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:27:31 -0700, Mike Harding

Quoted text here. Click to load it

QNX fits your description, both versions 4 and 6, though version 4 is
close to its end of life.  It is used widely in industrial and automotive
applications, Cisco uses QNX it their routers.

As it is licensed per unit, with thousands per year you'll have very good
price.

http://www.qnx.com Another interesting place is http://www.openqnx.com

(I am not affiliated with them, just used QNX for several years :)

HTH,
   Vadim

Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You have specified a minimum worst case response time - that is precisely
what real-time means.  To my knowledge, CE is not real-time, although most
versions are what is termed "soft real-time", meaning that it probably will
respond fast enough, but there are no guarentees.  Whether that is good
enough or not depends on what might happen if a response takes longer than 2
msecs once in a while.

CE is an appropriate choice where you want to build a small device that
looks like windows, and can run pretend-windows applications like pocket
word processors.  If you don't have a screen, or don't need to run
ready-made CE applications, then it has no advantages over other systems,
and plenty of disadvantages (cost, large footprint, lack of source code,
poor reputation).

Alteratives to look at are qnx, linux (available with hard real-time
varients if needed), eCos, RTEMS, vxWorks, microC OS 2.

There are wide ranges depending on whether you want to run on an 8-bit
microcontroller or a full embedded pc, or something inbetween.  If say what
sort of hardware you have available, and what you want to do with the
system, then you'll get more useful advice.


Quoted text here. Click to load it



Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I thought I remembered reading that CE 3.0 switches between
applications in 50 milliseconds or less. Prior versions were
 250 ms. Can someone explain how response times and "application
switches" can be compared with respect to an intended use?

thanks,

Jonathan


Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it
... snip ...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I can do better with a PIC in assembly, or even with an ancient
8008.

--
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
 as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." -     James Rhodes.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Exactly how it sounds.  10 busy tasks 50ms a switch 500ms to get back to
your task.
if the other tasks are not busy, it will be faster.

Jonathan Bosch wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it

CE's default thread time-slice is 1ms



Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you are referring to what MS calls the quantum (maximum time-slice).

If we are talking "default quantum", then see the following from the
internet ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/embedded/embedded_032602.asp )
********************
Q: BenH : I have an embedded app with multiple threads at the same priority
level. When one of these is encrypting data (about 20 ms), the others appear
to be starved. Why is this occurring?
John_Eldridge_MS
A: BenH: The default thread quantum is 100ms so unless your thread yields it
will run continuously for 100ms before switching to the next thread at the
same priority.

***************

That, my friend, is 1/10 of a second.   I remember the quantum on the
version of CE I messed with being default to 100ms, but that you could
change it by hacking the OS somehow.  Other versions may have a different
quantum.

Cheers,

Jody





Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:15:40 -0400, "Jonathan Bosch"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It appears that these figures apply in the situation when multiple
processes are executed at the same priority level at a round robin
fashion. I don't understand why anybody designing a real time system
would put the tasks on the same priority and use round robin
scheduling.

Much more interesting would be the independent worst case figures for
wake up times after an interrupts satisfies a read request or the
switching time from SetEvent to WaitForSingleObject.

When using any flavour of Windows and requiring some kind of timing
accuracy, do not use the SetTimer, since it will use the message queue
even if only a callback routine (no window handle) is specified. The
other traffic in the message queue and the responses to these messages
will mess any timing accuracy. Use the timeout parameter in
WaitForSingleObject or use multimedia timers when available.

Paul
 

Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question

Quoted text here. Click to load it
And hence you'll be carrying around a few million lines of someone else's
code with all the inherent risk that that implies (whether it's Micro$oft
code or open source) for no good reason.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Well, that depends a lot on processor speed, system loading and what you
mean by response time.   Timer granularity in CE3.0 is 1mS IIRC, but
interrupt response time is much, much quicker (I think still on the order of
10s of microseconds on a 233MHz Pentium, though).

Quoted text here. Click to load it
The development I worked on used 3.  However, if I was forced to use CE on a
new development, I'd use whatever the latest non-beta release was.  At least
that way you might still be able to get support and tools by the end of the
development.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
It's probably about as stable (i.e. undergoes about the same frequency of
major revisions these days) as Linux.  But I think you may have meant
reliable rather than stable.  Certainly on a dedicated system like the one I
was involved with, it didn't fall over (nothing worse for your confidence in
electronic banking than walking up to an ATM and being confronted with a
BSOD).

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Sort of.  It's got a pre-emptive scheduler with multiple priority levels.
Like any real OS (rather than an RTOS), though, it's way too complicated
(allocating, freeing, garbage collecting) to be able to achieve the sort of
guaranteed response times required to consider a system hard real-time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Humongous compared the world of 8 bit processors that I usually frequent.
Smaller than NT/XP.  Microsft claims as little as 200k, but allow 4Mb for
reasonable functionality with a TCP/IP stack, GUI, File system, etc.  Don't
need those?  Find something else.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I've worked (in a requirements and architectural capacity only) with a team
that implemented a real time system using CE.  The particular technology
development company doing the development had a bias towards hiring OO
Windows programmers, and "when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks
like a nail".  The development took about five times the number of man-hours
that I estimated it would have taken using a more established RTOS, Windows
experience was not directly transferable - more time was spent on things
that worked almost like Windows than on stuff that was completely different.
The one thing that did shine was the GUI (but then you don't want that).

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I'd consider a more traditional RTOS or perhaps QNX, eCos, or one of the
more commercial RTLinuxxy things.

HTH.  All my own opinions and coloured view of my experience, I'm afraid.
So, as always, YMMV.

Cheers,
--
Alf Katz
snipped-for-privacy@remove.the.obvious.ieee.org



Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Take a look at MicroC OS 2. http://www.ucos-ii.com/ You can even
purchase Jean's book first and try out the OS. Then if you use it in
your product you have to license it. If you want something for free you
could find the original MicroC OS on the net for your processor.

Mark

Re: RTOS's and Windows CE question
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I wouldn't consider CE 3.0 - this is now in "maintenance"  by Microsoft.
This leaves you with CE 4.2 and CE 5.0; CE 5.0 has only been released in the
last couple of months. The lifetime of CE (per version) appears to be
slightly better than mainstream Windows. CE 4.2 was an improvement, in terms
of functionality and mainstream Windows compatability. As others have
pointed out, CE is similar to but *not* identical with Windows so don't
expect to port any application straight across. One instance of this is
exception handling in C++, although this is addressed in CE 5.0.

On one platform that I worked on, moving from CE3.0 to CE4.2 increased the
image from 9MB to 11.5MB for the same functionality. This was with a GUI
(but a minimal shell). Even a non-GUI platform is relatively large (several
MB). The target application for the platform on which I worked didn't have
any real-time requirements. You can get some source for CE but, given the
size of the OS, this is relatively small (only a few MB of code :-) ). I
found that Microsoft were helpful when we reported a fault.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
QNX has always impressed me as has uCos. USB host support in the OS may be
the thing that defines your choice of OS.

    Andrew



Site Timeline