Subject: |
RE: Channel Watcher V2.0 |
From: |
"Zelazny, Michael S." <[email protected]> |
To: |
"EPICS Tech Talk (E-mail)" <[email protected]> |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:11:04 -0800 |
Some of our IOCs have several hundred channels monitored by CW. When one
channel changes the IOC only needs to send that one channel's worth of data
to the Channel Watcher instead of tieing up the IOC to write the whole s/r
file over the network.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McAllister [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 3:23 PM
To: EPICS Tech Talk (E-mail)
Cc: 'Kay-Uwe Kasemir'
Subject: Re: Channel Watcher V2.0
Kay-Uwe Kasemir wrote:
> I just think that writing files via NFS must be lame compared to
> ChannelAccess: NFS performs round-trip requests to "open", "write",
> "write", "write", .. then "close".
Keep in mind that NFS writes in much larger pieces than CA does, so there
won't be that many "writes".
An example from one of our IOCs:
SR: 118 channels + header -> NFS file = 2853 bytes = 2 data packets
With the protocol overhead included, the difference in network load is
probably much less than you imply.
( Difficult to be quantitative about CA without that protocol spec.... )
- brian
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Channel Watcher V2.0 Brian McAllister
- Next:
how about using a new IOC host OS? M.C.Shao
- 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: Channel Watcher V2.0 Brian McAllister
- Next:
alarms and autodialers Peregrine M. McGehee
- 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
|