EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: I have a question about using muti IOC
From: Ralph Lange <[email protected]>
To: Luedeke Andreas <[email protected]>
Cc: EPICS Tech Talk <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:06:24 +0100
Well, not really problems, but difficulties and ambiguities:

As far as I recall, in some implementations of UDP/IP, only one of the processes that share a UDP port will get a UDP unicast. This will break the Channel Access name resolution mechanism, which relies on CA servers being able to receive the resolution requests. In most (maybe all newer?) cases all the port-sharing processes will get the message, which works. That's what you see on your Linux box (also true for Windows, I heard).

If I remember correctly, there was a problem with CA beacons coming from those multiple soft IOCs: Clients were interpreting the regular beacons from multiple IOCs residing on the same IP as irregular beacons from one server and continuously retransmitting all their unresolved channels. As far as I know Jeff has fixed this by adding IP and port info to the beacon packets, so that the clients can distinguish these cases.

I still prefer having different IP addresses for different IOCs on the same host, as you can find out a lot easier which soft IOC a certain channel (that an external CA client is connected to) resides on. Useful when things are hanging and you want to know which of the soft IOCs has to be rebooted.

I am not expert enough to tell what positive or negative side effects multiple logical interfaces (with their separate stacks and system resources) have - compared to running all traffic over one interface. Somehow keeping things separate feels more adequate to me, but that feeling may be wrong just as well.

Cheers,
Ralph

ps. Note that the addition of logical interfaces does not require any additional hardware in your Linux box, it's just creating new network interfaces that share the same ethernet card. Pure configuration.


Luedeke Andreas wrote:
Hi,
at the SLS we do run many IOCs on one Linux Host (Redhat 7.3, Redhat 9 or ScientificLinux 3).
We get the same error message, but we just ignore them:
until now we did not run into any problems due to this.
We just run "soft-iocs" on Linux without any hardware connections.


Ralph, where would you expect a problem from this shared UDP port?

Kind Regards
Andreas


Replies:
Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Andrew Johnson
References:
Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Ralph Lange

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Ralph Lange
Next: Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Ralph Lange
Next: Re: I have a question about using muti IOC Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  <20072008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Nov 2011 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·