Marty Kraimer wrote:
>
> This message discusses IOC CPU Priorities.
>
> How about the following priorities, from highest to lowest.
>
> IOCHIGH
> IOCMEDIUM
> CAHIGH
> IOCLOW
> CAMEDIUM
> CALOW
> CAUDP and CATCP
> BACKGROUND
I agree that the application developer may decide that some
db scan activities are non-essential and therefore should
be run at a lower priority than the CA server. However, when
choosing to do this the application developer should
be well aware that under increasing client load that there
may be long or short periods of time when the BACKGROUND and
also the possibly the IOCLOW scan activities will be disrupted.
The application developer could easily end up with a situation
where the operator is able to start a new screen but he gets
an old value for the io periodically scanned at IOCLOW
priority and ends up making an incorrect decision based on the
having an incorrect perception of the state of the plant.
Since there would be no warning that scan activities have been
disrupted then this appears to be a particularly dangerous
pit that we may be digging for the application developer to
fall into.
Just me be paranoid.
Jeff
--
______________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey O. Hill Internet [email protected]
LANL MS H820 Voice 505 665 1831
Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA FAX 505 665 5107
- References:
- flaky IOC problems at Jefferson Lab Marty Kraimer
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: flaky IOC problems at Jefferson Lab watson
- Next:
Looking for help Todd Boroson
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
<1997>
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: flaky IOC problems at Jefferson Lab watson
- Next:
EPICS Guide Bakul Banerjee
- Index:
1994
1995
1996
<1997>
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|