Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining

[Timo Korhonen via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>]

Do you do the binning in the IOC? This is something we have thought of but not implemented yet.

 

Timo

 

From: "Pearson, Matthew R." <pearsonmr at ornl.gov>
Date: Monday, 1 November 2021 at 18:19
To: Timo Korhonen <Timo.Korhonen at ess.eu>, Ralph Lange <ralph.lange at gmx.de>
Cc: EPICS Core Talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining

 

Hi,

 

We have seen similar issues and one way we dealt with it was to provide a heavily re-binned array for use via gateways. Inside the beamline network we provide both a full un-binned array, hidden behind ‘detailed’ buttons, as well as the re-binned array screens that users will first encounter on higher level screens. We also limited the array size that the gateway will transmit, so some of the larger arrays don’t work which forces people to view the re-binned arrays.

 

Also, depending on the original data type and software, you can ‘compress’ the array data from 16 or 32-bit down to 8-bit data by re-scaling it to 0-255, like a JPEG image. Then the waveform data type can be set to UCHAR.

 

The above only works if the waveforms are simply for visualization.

 

Cheers,

Matt

 

From: Core-talk <core-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov> On Behalf Of Timo Korhonen via Core-talk
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Ralph Lange <ralph.lange at gmx.de>; EPICS Core Talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining

 

Right, this is the way we are going for now. It is not exactly trivial to manage but should be doable.

 

Thanks,

 

TImo

 

From: Core-talk <core-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov> on behalf of EPICS Core Talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Reply-To: Ralph Lange <ralph.lange at gmx.de>
Date: Monday, 1 November 2021 at 16:18
To: EPICS Core Talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining

 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 10:49, Timo Korhonen via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:

Just a short follow-up.
We found out that the delays are due to large arrays being monitored over the gateway. Not a surprise, even if we have tried to remind users about the effects with big arrays.

 

One way to mitigate this - I think this approach was implemented at some point at the SLS - is to route the large array channels through a dedicated separate gateway instance.

(Ease of configuration depends on your naming convention.)

 

Cheers,
~Ralph