#emc-devel | Logs for 2008-04-22

[01:08:24] <cradek> cool, ed nisley has an article in digital machinist
[01:08:48] <cradek> it talks about cutter compensation, arc entry moves, etc
[01:12:04] <jmkasunich> digital machinst is a paper magazine isn't it?
[01:12:09] <cradek> yes
[01:12:35] <jmkasunich> I guess I'll have to read it at the workshop
[13:56:44] <rayh> After the latest round of updates from Ubuntu, I'm back to a jerky Axis display.
[13:56:55] <rayh> It is using the same driver that was okay yesterday.
[14:11:27] <rayh> Only does it on lines not arcs. If I move the mouse it updates.
[14:26:42] <cradek> rayh: what updated?
[14:27:24] <rayh> I don't know what all. I just pressed update.
[14:28:30] <rayh> It did require a restart for some security updates.
[14:31:13] <rayh> how can I renice axis to get a higher priority.
[14:47:17] <rayh> Tried nice -5 for both axis and xorg -- no difference.
[14:48:16] <rayh> set them back to 0 and now it's running.
[14:50:07] <jepler> argh, my hardy/amd64 machine crashed again -- this time it had been up about 2 weeks, I think
[14:50:59] <rayh> Yuck. I didn't want to hear that.
[14:51:26] <jepler> are you running the 64-bit OS or the 32-bit OS?
[14:51:56] <rayh> I've got a stock beta on and64 and EMC2 on 32
[14:52:40] <jepler> as far as I know, Alex hasn't had any crashes of his 32-bit real time kernel
[14:52:50] <rayh> Not had any real trouble with either
[14:53:09] <rayh> the crash was on an rtai?
[14:53:30] <jepler> yes but I'm fairly certain that rtai was not loaded when it crashed
[14:53:53] <jepler> (hm, or was emc still running after I tested that fix for G43 in axis preview?)
[14:54:31] <cradek> hmmm
[14:54:33] <jepler> I trust the hardware more than I trust the adeos kernel patch :-P
[14:55:11] <rayh> I know that feeling. Where was I when ....
[14:55:52] <cradek> I'm downloading alex's i386 cd. I have a machine to play with.
[14:58:14] <jepler> right now I'm thinking I won't promote the amd64 version or create a Live CD .. but I should put the packages in the repository so that the intrepid can try them.
[14:59:07] <rayh> Sounds good to me. I'd like to try the amd64 sometime.
[15:01:49] <rayh> Is this the first crash you've seen with the 64?
[15:02:48] <jepler> no, it's crashed each time I've left it up long enough
[15:02:57] <jepler> (this is the third or fourth time)
[15:03:53] <cradek> rayh: updates are logged in /var/log/dpkg.log. if you think an update changed your behavior you could see what they were
[15:04:00] <cradek> grep "status installed" /var/log/dpkg.log
[15:05:21] <rayh> 2008-04-22 08:39:13 status installed python-uno 1:2.4.0-3ubuntu6
[15:06:27] <rayh> 2008-04-21 07:36:25 status installed python-dev 2.5.2-0ubuntu1
[15:06:39] <rayh> and I did recompile this morning
[15:06:59] <cradek> which video driver did you end up with?
[15:08:00] <rayh> sis
[15:08:18] <rayh> It did seem to clean up the timing so my monitor matches the other boxes on the kvm
[15:10:18] <rayh> There are at least a hundred updates yesterday and today.
[15:11:08] <cradek> the update reconfigured X for you??
[15:13:26] <rayh> I looked and it didn't seem to.
[15:13:42] <rayh> Still the same driver and display
[15:16:49] <rayh> brb
[15:20:58] <rayh> Just tried a restart of gnome and it does not want to work.
[15:34:29] <rayh_> seems to be doing better after dpkg --configure and restart.
[15:42:12] <rayh_> rayh_ is now known as rayh
[17:44:55] <alex_joni> jepler: I had some crashes on i386 too, but I think that was related to the -12 kernel
[17:45:02] <alex_joni> it crashed with the unpatched kernel too
[17:45:40] <jepler> hm
[17:45:50] <jepler> I think I'm still on the -12 kernel; maybe I should upgrade
[17:45:56] <alex_joni> but I had no crashes with -16 yet
[17:46:04] <alex_joni> otoh, I haven't let it running for 2 weeks
[20:11:01] <skunkworks_> hovers around 24ipm at g64p.00005
[20:11:35] <cradek> is that inches?
[20:11:40] <skunkworks_> yes
[20:11:43] <skunkworks_> stepper_inch
[20:12:18] <cradek> that's a pretty small tolerance
[20:13:36] <skunkworks_> but - running strait g64 takes 1min40seconds or around 4ipm
[20:13:47] <skunkworks_> per email
[20:16:48] <skunkworks_> I was lowering the tollerence until I saw an effect on feed rate.. (Lower than 30ipm)
[20:17:03] <skunkworks_> or would that be considered raising the tollerence? ;)
[20:17:47] <skunkworks_> tolerance
[20:18:17] <alex_joni> 4ipm per email?
[20:18:29] <skunkworks_> 3.77
[20:18:40] <alex_joni> 3.77 per email?
[20:18:42] <skunkworks_> yes
[20:18:45] <skunkworks_> my email
[20:18:54] <alex_joni> ???
[20:18:57] <skunkworks_> sorry - I probably not making sense
[20:19:12] <skunkworks_> the vfd interference thread
[20:19:16] <jepler> according to an e-mail message, someone's machine went at 4IPM in the condition under test
[20:20:22] <cradek> G94.1: Feed in units per email
[20:21:03] <alex_joni> G94.2 Feed in emails per unit
[20:21:06] <alex_joni> per time
[20:21:27] <jepler> is inches per minute per email a way to represent acceleration?
[20:21:27] <skunkworks_> :)
[20:21:51] <cradek> email^2
[20:22:05] <alex_joni> it's inches / emails / second
[20:22:36] <alex_joni> maybe acceleration is actually the rate of changing in the wording inside spam emails / second
[20:24:57] <alex_joni> I really like how people use the same thread/email subject to refer to a huge variety of things
[20:25:12] <cradek> that's so irritating
[20:25:24] <cradek> they just reply to any old message
[20:25:30] <skunkworks_> sorry - I should have replied to jons email - he changed the subject
[20:25:41] <skunkworks_> I replied to jmks
[20:25:41] <cradek> probably their mailreaders are too stupid to show threads, so they don't know any better
[21:00:57] <skunkworks_> jepler: why would that circle program I posted show a velocity of 0 run as is?