Subject: |
Re: Limits on CA message size? |
From: |
[email protected] |
Date: |
Tue, 17 May 94 15:14:54 -0500 |
>>> Note that some clients like dm carefully keep only one connection per IOC.
>>> Others may not. Again, Jeff and/or Andy can confirm what the demand is
>>> for each instance of a sequencer: It uses CA but not TCP/IP, therefore,
>>> it may be smart enough to not need the buffer.
>>
>> Why is not CA responsible for this junk? Why should the user programs
>> have to worry about it?
>>
>> If CA handled this problem itself, we would have this problem solved in one
>> single place... once and for all.
>
>Within one UNIX process CA opens only one TCP/IP virtual circuit to each
>IOC communicated with. The problem is that some applications create
>additional independent UNIX processes to manage additional process
>variables. These applications may end creating duplicate TCP/IP
>circuits.
We know that. But if the CA client uses the CA library to deal with the
socket operations, why can't it decide if a new one is needed or not for
each of the PV names? Does it not already know where its sockets are
going to?
--John
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: Limits on CA message size? Jeff Hill
- Next:
camacLib update Johnny Tang
- 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
2025
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: Limits on CA message size? Jeff Hill
- Next:
Problems with GDCT greene%denali.UUCP
- 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
2025
|