| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tekl
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 813 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:16 pm Post subject: Exchanging Variables in Network/Sending Events |
|
|
Hi,
I don't know if it's possible. But I'm looking for a solution to let two AHK-scripts with each other. The script are on different machines in a LAN. At this time I use a workaround with the registry of the server, but it could be cool to share variables over the network or to send events to other computers. For example I want to monitor a program on another computer. If the program on the other computer crashes I want a message on the computer I'm sitting in front of.
Tekl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 10467
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a good idea, though somewhat low priority for now due to the expected complications involved with network communications between scripts. Normally, I use mapped drives and create files locally or remotely to communicate with another script; this is probably less elegant than your method of using the registry.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tekl
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 813 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chris,
I also tried it with files, but that slows down the pc to much when it will be done every second. I submit a percentag-value to another pc.
Tekl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 10467
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To make it faster, write the file directly to the local file system of the script that will be receiving it (via mapped drive or direct UNC path). Then use IfExist in a loop to check for it periodically. That should use very close to 0% CPU time (since it is checking a local file, not a remote file).
I've not noticed any performance impact when doing it this way. If I recall correctly, even on a slow CPU less than 1% CPU time is used (depending on how often you check for the file). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tekl
Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 813 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you think it's faster than using a remote-registry? What about a system, where the memory is full and swapping is active? Also while working with big files in Photoshop the HD will be extremely used. Does checking the file slows it down?
Tekl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris Site Admin
Joined: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 10467
|
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure if remote registry is any faster. As a guess, I would expect it to be slightly faster for the remote machine when it reads from its local registry.
| Quote: | | Also while working with big files in Photoshop the HD will be extremely used. Does checking the file slows it down? | Due to the OS's built-in disk caching, it seems unlikely that checking for the existence of a file -- even if done multiple times per second -- would slow down a disk-intensive task by more than 0.1% (one tenth of 1 percent). This is because I expect that the disk is not even physically accessed; instead, the OS consults the cached directory structure and immediately discovers the file is (or is not) there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|