On 03/18/14 12:38, Ralph Lange wrote:
RTEMS uses real-time priorities, so the CA priority will have effect.
IOC-to-IOC connections have a higher CA priority by default (80),
which might give you a somewhat indirect influence. (A soft IOC
connecting to the "fast" channels will get them with higher CA
priority than regular GUI clients or Gateways.)
The 'casr' command on the IOC will list the priorities of all current
CA connections.
Hmm. When I run casr on my ioc, I get back one priority value per
client, not one per channel. And all of the priorities are currently
zero. Should this output look different if I were setting priority on a
per channel basis from the client?
I'm inclined to try the soft ioc test for the fast records, or maybe
write a client to test priorities. That would get messy in practice, but
should prove the principle. I was really hoping there was a way to do
this from the server end.
Unfortunately since all the EDM client priorities default to zero, if I
want to make this work with a custom client, it has to be for the (large
number of) fast records since I can't make the priority of the (small
number of) slow ones lower than zero.
--
Brian S. Bevins, PE
Computer Scientist / Mechanical Engineer
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face
for the urge to rule it."
-- H. L. Mencken
- Replies:
- Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Andrew Johnson
- References:
- Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Brian Bevins
- Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Ralph Lange
- Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Brian Bevins
- Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Ralph Lange
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Brian Bevins
- Next:
Newport ESP-301 units Specht, Eliot D.
- 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: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: Prioritizing Channel Access per Record? Andrew Johnson
- 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
|