EPICS Home

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System


 
2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024  Index 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining
From: "Zimoch Dirk \(PSI\) via Core-talk" <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>
To: "core-talk at aps.anl.gov" <core-talk at aps.anl.gov>, "Timo.Korhonen at ess.eu" <Timo.Korhonen at ess.eu>, "ralph.lange at gmx.de" <ralph.lange at gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 13:49:13 +0000
Separating array data from scalar data manually is very work intensive. You need to identify naming patterns and still
have the risk that someone invents a new array with a name that is not matched by your filters.

But maybe the gateway can automatically move a connection to a separate CA context if it is an array? Depending on
whether the bottle neck is on the CA client or CA server side, this may be more or less complicated. If it is only the
server, the GW may run two servers, one that replies only when the channel turns out to be a scalar and the other that
replies only when the channel is an array. If the bottle neck is in the client, the GW would probably need to do the
connection twice, slowing down connection setup and increasing network load a bit for arrays: First do the normal search
request. On connect check the number of elements. If not 1, drop the channel and do again in a different context
reserved for arrays. (I do not think that you can "move" a ca connection from one context to another).

Does this sound feasible?
Will it help? I don't know.


On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 15:35 +0000, Timo Korhonen via Core-talk wrote:
> 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
>  

Replies:
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
References:
CA gateway chaining Timo Korhonen via Core-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Hartman, Steven via Core-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Zimoch Dirk (PSI) via Core-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Timo Korhonen via Core-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Ralph Lange via Core-talk
Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Timo Korhonen via Core-talk

Navigate by Date:
Prev: RE: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Mark L Rivers via Core-talk
Next: Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
Index: 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: RE: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Mark L Rivers via Core-talk
Next: Re: [EXTERNAL] CA gateway chaining Johnson, Andrew N. via Core-talk
Index: 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024