Remotely upgrading only one section/functionality of an entire software
karthikbalaguru
I am looking for some ways for remotely upgrading
only a part of functionality/section of a software
running on a target board by sending commands
to it through web interface. I do not want the entire
software to be upgraded. I want only one
functionality to be upgraded. I do not want the
software on the remote target board to be rebooted.
I am considering an ARM processor based board
with external FLASH and RAM memory.
What are the best possible ways for doing this ?
Any ideas ?
Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru
larwe
wrote:
> I am looking for some ways for remotely upgrading
> only a part of functionality/section of a software
> running on a target board by sending commands
> to it through web interface. I do not want the entire
Do you really mean "upgrading" (adding functionality different from
how the board was shipped from the factory) or "enabling" (purchasing
a license for a feature)?
Tim Wescott
How big an OS are you using?
This is something that a 'big' OS like Linux, VxWorks (icky), and Windows
(ickier) all support. Either through a loadable library (Windows uses
the DLL, I can't remember the names that Linux and VxWorks use), or with
separate applications communicating with one another.
You define your interface, you partition the functionality _before_ you
write all the code, you put the mutable stuff into loadable libraries,
then to do your upgrade you just upgrade the library. I _do not know_ if
you can get away with doing this method without rebooting your
application -- you'll have to research.
Alternately, all of these OS's will let you have separate applications
running as separate processes, communicating with sockets or whatever.
Swapping out an application becomes more structured, although you still
have issues with how to get 'er done if you want to do it on the fly.
Tim Wescott
D Yuniskis
> Hi,
> I am looking for some ways for remotely upgrading
> only a part of functionality/section of a software
> running on a target board by sending commands
> to it through web interface. I do not want the entire
> software to be upgraded. I want only one
> functionality to be upgraded. I do not want the
> software on the remote target board to be rebooted.
But, you will have to make sure the "module"/portion
that is being upgraded is not accessed during the upgrade
process. Can you do this? Does your *other* code
reside in the same physical device? (i.e., can you be
upgrading one portion while executing code out of it
at the same time?)
> I am considering an ARM processor based board
> with external FLASH and RAM memory.
>
> What are the best possible ways for doing this ?
> Any ideas ?
How is your application sturctured? At the very least,
you need some way of compartmentalizing the portions that
you want to upgrade. You can choose whatever size/shape
"compartments" you want. As long as you can govern
access to those individual "compartments" during the
upgrade.
For example, you might decide you want to treat the FLASH
as a set of 1K compartments -- any of which can be upgraded
independant of the others. Or, you can treat it as a
set of one *byte* compartments. As long as you can keep the
processor from trying to *use* the compartments that you are
altering *while* their state is indeterminate.
(e.g., if you can keep the processor out of the entire
flash, then you can pick and chose which individual *bytes*
you modify)
As far as not having to reboot, that is possible if you
don't have any "state" that has been corrupted/invalidated
as a consequence of the upgrade (or, if any such problems
are fixable as part of your upgrade/recovery procedure)
Vladimir Vassilevsky
Upgrading system components without reboot requires guaranteed correct
handling of all dependencies and states. This is non-trivial problem
which very well can be insoluble unless your system is specifically
designed for that. The upgradeability on the fly will cost you a lot of
software overhead and complexity, so the best way is drop this idea.
Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
karthikbalaguru
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:00:11 -0800, karthikbalaguru wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am looking for some ways for remotely upgrading only a part of
> > functionality/section of a software running on a target board by sending
> > commands to it through web interface. I do not want the entire software
> > to be upgraded. I want only one functionality to be upgraded. I do not
> > want the software on the remote target board to be rebooted.
>
> > I am considering an ARM processor based board with external FLASH and
> > RAM memory.
>
> > What are the best possible ways for doing this ? Any ideas ?
>
> > Thx in advans,
> > Karthik Balaguru
>
> How big an OS are you using?
>
Linux :-) with minimal functionalities along with filesystem.
> This is something that a 'big' OS like Linux, VxWorks (icky), and Windows
> (ickier) all support. Either through a loadable library (Windows uses
> the DLL, I can't remember the names that Linux and VxWorks use), or with
> separate applications communicating with one another.
>
> You define your interface, you partition the functionality _before_ you
> write all the code, you put the mutable stuff into loadable libraries,
> then to do your upgrade you just upgrade the library. I _do not know_ if
> you can get away with doing this method without rebooting your
> application -- you'll have to research.
The trick of having the section of software that is to be upgraded
as a library and upgrading only the libraries is interesting :-) .
Yes,
that avoids the upgradation of the complete software.
I think the partitioning of the application w.r.t memory can be done
using the Linker Script and while partitioning we need to have
a separate memory section/segment for library . In this way, i think
that section alone can be overwritten with the new library.
But, Is the above method feasible in linux ?
> Alternately, all of these OS's will let you have separate applications
> running as separate processes, communicating with sockets or whatever.
> Swapping out an application becomes more structured, although you still
> have issues with how to get 'er done if you want to do it on the fly.
Can you pleasse elaborate this method ?