What does PI in OSIsoft's 'PI System' stand for?
I can't tell if it stands for the symbol/number Pi, or if it stands for a previous name for the technology, like 'Process Intelligence'. PI is too close to the more common BI to be just a coincidence.
Note - There are Channel9 videos that demonstrate how MS uses OSIsoft to monitor some operations. Links to the C9 videos are from the 'SQL 2008 R2' CEP pages. The SQL CEP features are called StreamInsight.
PI used to stand for "Plant Information". Now that the PI System suite of products does much more and is used in many different environments, PI is just "PI".
PI stands for Plant Information or Process Information, depending on who you ask.
A little bit of history for you; before PI was used in various industries, it was mainly geared to oil/gas. OSI used to stand for Oil Systems Incorporated.
Mainly to store a large amount of historical data for industrial purposes.
A good example is when you need to develop an enhancement in your process to reduce the energy consuption then you can use the informations of each equipment and make plans to reduce it's energy consuption.
Other example is when you need to make industrial informations available for the entire corporation, as the state of a equipment (stopped or running). The PI System has it's own interfaces to make it possible.
PI stands for process intelligence!whereby in its storage of information like intersection of matrices where there is small set of universe which represent the system,that intersection has never been zero,like for pi it has information as long as it is in connection with the plant.
Related
I have a project that consisted of transmitting data wirelessly from 15 tractors to a station, the maximum distance between tractor and station is 13 miles. I used a raspberry pi 3 to collect data from tractors. with some research I found that there is no wifi or GSM coverage so the only solution is to use RF communication using VHF. so is that possible with raspberry pi or I must add a modem? if yes, what is the criterion for choosing a modem? and please if you have any other information tell me?
and thank you for your time.
I had a similar issue but possibly a little more complex. I needed to cover a maximum distance of 22 kilometres and I wanted to monitor over 100 resources ranging from breeding stock to fences and gates etc. I too had no GSM access plus no direct line of sight access as the area is hilly and the breeders like the deep valleys. The solution I used was to make my own radio network using cheap radio repeaters. Everything was battery operated and was driven by the receivers powering up the transmitters. This means that the units consume only 40 micro amps on standby and when the transmitters transmit, in my case they consume around 100 to 200 milliamps.
In the house I have a little program that transmits a poll to the receivers every so often and waits for the units to reply. This gives me a big advantage because I can, via the repeater trail (as each repeater, the signal goes through, adds its code to the returning message) actually determine were my stock are.
Now for the big issue, how long do the batteries last? Well each unit has a 18650 battery. For the fence and gate controls this is charged by a small 5 volt solar panel and after 2 years running time I have not changed any of them. For the cattle units the length of time between charges depends solely on how often you poll the units (note each unit has its own code) with one exception (a bull who wants to roam and is a real escape artist) I only poll them once or twice a day and I swap the battery every two weeks.
The frequency I use is 433Mhz and the radio transmitters and receivers are very cheap ( less then 10 cents a pair if you by them in Australia) with a very small Attiny (I think) arduino per unit (around 30 cents each) and a length on wire (34.6cm long as an aerial) for the cattle and 69.2cm for the repeaters. Note these calculations are based on the frequency used i.e. 433Mhz.
As I had to install lots of the repeaters I contacted an organisation in China (sorry they no longer exist) and they created a tiny waterproof and rugged capsule that contained everything, while also improving on the design (range wise while reducing power) at a cost of $220 for 100 units not including batterys. I bought one lot as a test and now between myself and my neighbours we bought another 2000 units for only $2750.
In my case this was paid for in less then three months when during calving season I knew exactly were they were calving and was on site to assist. The first time I used it we saved a mother who was having a real issue.
To end this long message I am not an expert but I had an idea and hired people who were and the repeater approach certainly works over long distances and large areas (42 square kilometres).
Following on from the comments above, I'm not sure where you are located but spectrum around the 400mhz range is licensed in many countries so it would be worth checking exactly what you can use.
If this is your target then this is UHF rather than VHF so if you search for 'Raspberry PI UHF shield' or 'Raspberry PI UHF module' you will find some examples of cheap hardware you can add to your raspberry pi to support communication over these frequencies. Most of the results should include some software examples also.
There are also articles on using the pins on the PI to transmit directly by modulating the voltage them - this is almost certainly going to interfere with other communications so I doubt it would meet your needs.
Having looked for a description of the multicore design i keep finding several diagrams, but all of them look somewhat like this:
I know from looking at i7z command output that different cores can run at different frequencies.
This would suggest that the decisions regarding which core will be given a new process and for changing the frequency of the core itself are done either by the operating system or by the control block of the core itself.
My question is: What controls the frequencies of each individual core? Is the job of associating a READY process with the specific core placed upon the operating system or is it done by something within the processor.
Scheduling processes/threads to cores is purely up to the OS. The hardware has no understanding of tasks waiting to run. Maintaining the OS's list of processes that are runnable vs. waiting for I/O is completely a software thing.
Migrating a thread from one core to another is done by kernel code on the original core storing the architectural state to memory, then OS code on the new core restoring that saved state and resuming user-space execution.
Traditionally, frequency and voltage scaling decisions are made by the OS. Take Linux as an example: The decision-making code is called a governor (and also this arch wiki link came up high on google). It looks at things like how often processes have used their entire time slice on the current core. If the governor decides the CPU should run at a different speed, it programs some control registers to implement the change. As I understand it, the hardware takes care of choosing the right voltage to support the requested frequency.
As I understand it, the OS running on each core makes decisions independently. On hardware that allows each core to run at different frequencies, the decision-making code doesn't need to coordinate with each other. If running a high frequency on one core requires a high voltage chip-wide, the hardware takes care of that. I think the modern implementation of DVFS (dynamic voltage and frequency scaling) is fairly high-level, with the OS just telling the hardware which of N choices it wants, and the onboard power microcontroller taking care of the details of programming oscillators / clock dividers and voltage regulators.
Intel's "Turbo" feature, which opportunistically boosts the frequency above the max sustainable frequency, does the decision making in hardware. Any time the OS requests the highest advertised frequency, the CPU uses turbo when power and cooling allow.
Intel's Skylake takes this a step further: The OS can hand full control over DVFS to the hardware, optionally with constraints. That lets it react from microsecond to microsecond, rather than on a timescale of milliseconds. This does actually allow better performance in bursty workloads, because more power budget is available for turbo when it's useful. A few benchmarks are bursty enough to observe this, like some browser / javascript ones IIRC.
There was a whole talk about Skylake's new power management at IDF2015, check out the slides and/or archived webcast. The old method is described in a lot of detail there, too, to illustrate the difference, so you should really check it out if you want more detail than my summary. (The list of other IDF talks is here, thanks to Agner Fog's blog for the link)
The core frequency is controlled by a given voltage applied to a core's "oscillator".
This voltage can be changed by the Operating System but it can also be changed by the BIOS itself if a high temperature is detected in the CPU.
I have started playing around with Moses and tried to make what I believe would be a fairly standard baseline system. I have basically followed the steps described on the website, but instead of using news-commentary I have used Europarl v7 for training, with the WMT 2006 development set and the original Europarl common test. My idea was to do something similar to Le Nagard & Koehn (2010), who obtained a BLEU score of .68 in their baseline English-to-French system.
To summarise, my workflow was more or less this:
tokenizer.perl on everything
lowercase.perl (instead of truecase)
clean-corpus-n.perl
Train IRSTLM model using only French data from Europarl v7
train-model.perl exactly as described
mert-moses.pl using WMT 2006 dev
Testing and measuring performances as described
And the resulting BLEU score is .26... This leads me to two questions:
Is this a typical BLEU score for this kind of baseline system? I realise Europarl is a pretty small corpus to train a monolingual language model on, even though this is how they do things on the Moses website.
Are there any typical pitfalls for someone just starting with SMT and/or Moses I may have fallen in? Or do researchers like Le Nagard & Koehn build their baseline systems in a way different from what is described on the Moses website, for instance using some larger, undisclosed corpus to train the language model?
Just to put things straight first: the .68 you are referring to has nothing to do with BLEU.
My idea was to do something similar to Le Nagard & Koehn (2010), who obtained a BLEU score of .68 in their baseline English-to-French system.
The article you refer to only states that 68% of the pronouns (using co-reference resolution) was translated correctly. It nowhere mentions that a .68 BLEU score was obtained. As a matter of fact, no scores were given, probably because the qualitative improvement the paper proposes cannot be measured with statistical significance (which happens a lot if you only improve on a small number of words). For this reason, the paper uses a manual evaluation of the pronouns only:
A better evaluation metric is the number of correctly
translated pronouns. This requires manual
inspection of the translation results.
This is where the .68 comes into play.
Now to answer your questions with respect to the .26 you got:
Is this a typical BLEU score for this kind of baseline system? I realise Europarl is a pretty small corpus to train a monolingual language model on, even though this is how they do things on the Moses website.
Yes it is. You can find the performance of WMT language pairs here http://matrix.statmt.org/
Are there any typical pitfalls for someone just starting with SMT and/or Moses I may have fallen in? Or do researchers like Le Nagard & Koehn build their baseline systems in a way different from what is described on the Moses website, for instance using some larger, undisclosed corpus to train the language model?
I assume that you trained your system correctly. With respect to the "undisclosed corpus" question: members of the academic community normally state for each experiment which data sets were used for training testing and tuning, at least in peer-reviewed publications. The only exception is the WMT task (see for example http://www.statmt.org/wmt14/translation-task.html) where privately owned corpora may be used if the system participates in the unconstrained track. But even then, people will mention that they used additional data.
Looking for some help to be honest, This is not my area of knoladge atall.
Ive read around the question of powering my Pi with a battery, now I nabbed one of these guys for my phone
http://www.amazon.co.uk/13000mAh-Portable-External-Technology-Motorola-Black/dp/B00BQ5KHJW/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1420826597&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=anker+astro+e4
Incase the link dies in the future;
Item model number: AK-79AN13K2-BA
Anker® 2nd Gen Astro E4 13000mAh 2-Port (3A Output) Fast
Max 3A Out
5V Out
Now, from what i've read there have been mixed notes of, don't use batterys, only use this battery, don't do this, don't exeed this magical number ( which was differant each time ). so any help would be grately needed. If i was to power my pi via this thing. im I going to get a poof of smoke and need to replace the poor pi :(
A raspberry Pi is powered via USB, which means that it simply takes the 5V supplied via USB to run. As long as your current source is stable (ie. it doesn't change when you draw current from it), no device will care whether it is a battery or a switching power supply. Now, a bare raspberry Pi B uses less than 2W of power, 2W/5V = 0.4A = 400mA, so if that battery pack lives up to its specification, you are going to be fine. The device is spec'ed to provide 13000mAh, so at a constant current of 400mA, this would last you more than 32 hours.
Now, most people attach something to the raspberry, and that something will also draw power, but just add that power to the calculations above, to see if it's going to work out.
I'm new to Raspberry Pi and I don't understand about electricity. I bought a Raspberry B+ today and a 5V 3A power supply, but I'm afraid to connect it because in several places I read about using 5V 2A power supplies. I believe that only higher voltages can damage the Pi but, since I don't know about Amp, I don't know if this is true for 3A too.
My ideia is create a mini-personal server in my home, running Pidora. For data, I have a 1 Tb external USB drive with no external power supply (Seagate model SRD00F1).
My questions are:
can I use the 5V 3A power supply on Raspberry Pi B+ without damage it?
this power supply is compatible with my external USB drive to keep it on safely?
Thank you!
The Raspberry Pi FAQ says that the B+ uses between 0.7 and 1.0 amps, and suggest a 1.2 amp power supply as a minimum.
Using a power supply with a higher amperage rating will not harm your Raspberry Pi. Devices only draw as much current (amperage) as they need. Any additional capacity is unused.
This is where your question about the external hard drive comes in. If you see in the FAQ, they suggest that you might want a larger power supply if you use all of the USB ports. Every USB device you plug in is going to draw more current. To figure out how much you need, you just add up the requirements of all of the devices like so:
Raspberry Pi = 0.7-1.0A
Mouse/Keyboard = 0.5A
Hard Drive = 1.0A
========================
TOTAL = 2.5A
(These numbers are all fake... be sure to check the requirements for your actual devices.)
So if your devices total 2.5A then a 3A supply will handle all of these plus some room for expansion. If all of your devices total 3.5A, maybe you need to consider a bigger one.