rdlc data matrix

rdlc data matrix

rdlc data matrix

rdlc data matrix

rdlc data matrix

rdlc data matrix,

rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,

rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,

rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,

rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,
rdlc data matrix,

In cases where a majority of transactions are read-only transactions, the rate of con icts among transactions may be low Thus, many of these transactions, if executed without the supervision of a concurrency-control scheme, would nevertheless leave the system in a consistent state A concurrency-control scheme imposes overhead of code execution and possible delay of transactions It may be better to use an alterna-

CSC-SSM Card CSC-SSM-10 CSC-SSM-20

While the list of incentive formulas in this chapter seems extensive and complete, it actually only represents the building blocks of incentive formula design The combination of these different components gives the full palette of choicesThe number of configurations is almost unlimited However, limiting the number of performance measures to three or fewer precludes the occurrence of overly complex designs

The McGraw Hill Companies, 2001

Additional User Licenses 100, 250, and 500 750 and 1,000

16

.

25:

tive scheme that imposes less overhead A dif culty in reducing the overhead is that we do not know in advance which transactions will be involved in a con ict To gain that knowledge, we need a scheme for monitoring the system We assume that each transaction Ti executes in two or three different phases in its lifetime, depending on whether it is a read-only or an update transaction The phases are, in order, 1 Read phase During this phase, the system executes transaction Ti It reads the values of the various data items and stores them in variables local to Ti It performs all write operations on temporary local variables, without updates of the actual database 2 Validation phase Transaction Ti performs a validation test to determine whether it can copy to the database the temporary local variables that hold the results of write operations without causing a violation of serializability 3 Write phase If transaction Ti succeeds in validation (step 2), then the system applies the actual updates to the database Otherwise, the system rolls back Ti Each transaction must go through the three phases in the order shown However, all three phases of concurrently executing transactions can be interleaved To perform the validation test, we need to know when the various phases of transactions Ti took place We shall, therefore, associate three different timestamps with transaction Ti : 1 Start(Ti ), the time when Ti started its execution 2 Validation(Ti ), the time when Ti nished its read phase and started its validation phase 3 Finish(Ti ), the time when Ti nished its write phase We determine the serializability order by the timestamp-ordering technique, using the value of the timestamp Validation(Ti ) Thus, the value TS(Ti ) = Validation(Ti ) and, if TS(Tj ) < TS(Tk ), then any produced schedule must be equivalent to a serial schedule in which transaction Tj appears before transaction Tk The reason we have chosen Validation(Ti ), rather than Start(Ti ), as the timestamp of transaction Ti is that we can expect faster response time provided that con ict rates among transactions are indeed low The validation test for transaction Tj requires that, for all transactions Ti with TS(Ti ) < TS(Tj ), one of the following two conditions must hold: 1 Finish(Ti ) < Start(Tj ) Since Ti completes its execution before Tj started, the serializability order is indeed maintained 2 The set of data items written by Ti does not intersect with the set of data items read by Tj , and Ti completes its write phase before Tj starts its validation phase (Start(Tj ) < Finish(Ti ) < Validation(Tj )) This condition ensures that.

However, because of the limited throughput of the card and its processing capabilities, you should only divert the traffic you need the card to examine In other words, don t forward protocols like ICMP or SIP which the card can t scan NOTE When you define a policy for the CSC card, the policy is bi-directional This means that if traffic matches the policy on either an inbound interface or an outbound interface where there is a CSC policy, the traffic will be redirected into the card for further processing

The McGraw Hill Companies, 2001

By default the card processes no traffic unless you set up an MPF policy to forward matching packets to the card You must define an MPF policy containing the csc command to determine which traffic will be forwarded into the card This process was discussed in 10 Here are the commands you need: