Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ctakes-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ctakes-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA241D9CD for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97794 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2013 23:18:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ctakes-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 97763 invoked by uid 500); 8 Feb 2013 23:18:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ctakes-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ctakes-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ctakes-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 97755 invoked by uid 99); 8 Feb 2013 23:18:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:18:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_REPLY,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kannanth@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.182] (HELO mail-ve0-f182.google.com) (209.85.128.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 23:18:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ox1so3814885veb.13 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mJCymb/OZZtIRPNh9wmsDRma1hCkBpGDxJW49IvgTho=; b=Ywfb7hwjEH4Fw2qST63J47wLH+Cp5cY2iFRwtFnrvI1zclEQ43bRCumdPDEmMfvvao BEB4uHTGD0+aWhkUippV4Ot5Znl5srE8yNKYmh21zOBKyv60aDiIXjIgk/kgz2tynri5 iesITXbO7/XQdCBxo+Tj0KPnajs7o2+qs68had4pKjAW89hOR4tSK6+gaiIOCFlexEUT fy+2LVFKwiMlwrjEjFwImg8+SXY1aCdfusb0lS+g4K2kneL1n9KECN9kNz+PtyZzBZ1+ Azj00g6BoUzIqwL7p06eSD0c0HwFpcHfCnBibUZxJRlrGTNDVo7GxFmSJyUg/tA8INvl 8n5Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.154.148 with SMTP id o20mr8950746vcw.54.1360365506001; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:18:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.231.231 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:18:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <51156AED.3000107@perfectsearchcorp.com> References: <07EA9A39-A76E-4511-813F-12E5593FCC6A@childrens.harvard.edu> <51156AED.3000107@perfectsearchcorp.com> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:25 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Thread safety From: Kannan Thiagarajan To: ctakes-user@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438936fbffa5204d53ec69a X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d0438936fbffa5204d53ec69a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks for the pointers. I will do some experimentation with this. Best Regards Kannan On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Kim Ebert wrote: > Hi Kannan, > > I've been able to run multiple instances inside of a single service(JVM > instance) with this patch provided in CTAKES-151 to LVG. This doesn't allow > me to run multiple threads on a single instance. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-151 > > You may also want to see issue. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-149 > > My testing has been against cTAKES 2.5. > > Thanks, > > Kim Ebert1.801.669.7342 > Perfect Search Corphttp://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/ > > > On 02/08/2013 01:33 PM, Chen, Pei wrote: > > Hi Kannan, > current cTAKES wasn't designed to be thread safe. If you're planning to > wrap it in a service, I would suggest limiting to a single pipeline per > process. At least until it has been fully tested to allow > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 8, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "Kannan Thiagarajan" > wrote: > > Hello Karthik, > > Thanks for responding. > > I'm specifically interested in using the DrugNER and was going wrap it > as a service and noticed the limitation. > > I'm fairly new to UIMA and cTAKES; so pardon my ignorance. Is this > limitation due to some limitation within UIMA. > > Best Regards > Kannan > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Karthik Sarma wrote: > >> It is not thread safe at the moment, though a few of us have been looking >> into it >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karthik Sarma >> UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20?? >> Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab >> Member, CA Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical >> Association >> ksarma@ksarma.com >> gchat: ksarma@gmail.com >> linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Kannan Thiagarajan wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'm just curious if 3.0 which is incubation is designed for >>> thread-safety.In looking at cTAKES 2.5 - its clear that it is not designed >>> or tested for thread-safety. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards >>> Kannan Thiagarajan >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Best Regards > Kannan Thiagarajan > > -- Best Regards Kannan Thiagarajan --f46d0438936fbffa5204d53ec69a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the pointers. I will do some experimentati= on with this.=A0

Best Regards
Kannan=


O= n Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Kim Ebert <kim.ebert@perfects= earchcorp.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hi Kannan,

I've been able to run multiple instances inside of a single service(JVM instance) with this patch provided in CTAKES-151 to LVG. This doesn't allow me to run multiple threads on a single instance.=

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-151

You may also want to see issue.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-149

My testing has been against cTAKES 2.5.

Thanks,

Kim Ebert
1.8=
01.669.7342
Perfect Search Corp
http://www.=
perfectsearchcorp.com/

On 02/08/2013 01:33 PM, Chen, Pei wrote:
=20
Hi Kannan,
current cTAKES wasn't designed to be thread safe. If you'= ;re planning to wrap it in a service, I would suggest limiting to a single pipeline per process. At least until it has been fully tested to allow=A0

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 8, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "Kannan Thiagarajan" <kannanth@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:

Hello Karthik,=A0

Thanks for responding.=A0

I'm specifically interested in using the DrugNER and was going wrap it as a service and noticed the limitation.

I'm fairly new to UIMA and cTAKES; so pardon my ignorance. Is this limitation due to some limitation within UIMA.

Best Regards
Kannan






On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Karthik Sarma <= ksarma@ksarma.com> wrote:
It is not thread safe at the moment, though a few of us have been looking into it





--
Karthik Sarma
UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20??
Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab
Member, CA Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association
ksarma@ksarma.com
gchat: ksarma@gmail.com


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Kannan Thiagarajan <kannanth@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,=A0

I'm just curious if 3.0 which is incubation is designed for thread-safety.In looking at cTAKES 2.5 - its clear that it is not designed or tested for thread-safety.


--
Best Regards
Kannan Thiagarajan





--
Best Regards
Kannan Thiagarajan




--
Best Regards=
Kannan Thiagarajan

--f46d0438936fbffa5204d53ec69a--