# Throttle Block Scenario

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/throttle-block-scenario/233039>\
**Category:** GNU Radio\
**Created:** [November 13, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/throttle-block-scenario/233039 "2014-11-13T00:12:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@addis\_a](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/addis_a)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/throttle-block-scenario/233039/1 "2014-11-13T00:12:20Z")

</div>

I’ve created a flowgraph with two paths. One path allows me to transmit  
and  
receive over USRPs while the other path uses UDP loopback to bypass the  
USRPs if I don’t have them connected and want to do some testing.

In the path that does not include the USRPs, I include a throttle block  
because I noticed the CPU usuage max out without it in this path. When I  
change the selector blocks to the USRP path, the throttle block is not  
part  
of the data pathway. I’m worried that the throttle block might still  
have  
an effect on the flowgraph by just existing.

Is this the correct way to handle this two path scenario?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![reback](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/b5ac83/32.png) [@reback](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/reback)\
**Post date:** [November 13, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/throttle-block-scenario/233039/2 "2014-11-13T15:10:06Z")

</div>

On 11/13/2014 12:11 AM, Richard B. wrote:

> Is this the correct way to handle this two path scenario?  
> If you’re using GRC, most people would simply disable one path or the  
> other. You can disable and enable blocks using the ‘d’ and ‘e’ keys.

M