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 | 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 |
<== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
---|
Subject: | Re: Autosave -- debug output when field is updated |
From: | "Mooney, Tim M." <[email protected]> |
To: | "Rivers, Mark L." <[email protected]>, "'Daykin, Evan'" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> |
Date: | Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:01:28 +0000 |
What Mark said. But also, we had a situation recently in which several PVs were being posted at hundreds of HZ, and just having monitors on those PVs used a surprising amount of CPU. (We had a calcout record with CP links to the rapidly posted PVs. When we prevented the calcout record from processing, CPU went down, of course, but only to around 30%. When we deleted the links, the CPU went down to a normal range.) (Autosave monitors the PVs it saves, though I don't know if its monitor processing is comparable to an input link's monitor processing.)
Tim Mooney ([email protected]) (630)252-5417
Beamline Controls Group (www.aps.anl.gov) Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Lab From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Mark Rivers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:32:27 PM To: 'Daykin, Evan'; [email protected] Subject: RE: Autosave -- debug output when field is updated Hi Evan,
Note that the rate at which the PV updates and the rate at which the autosave file is written are quite different things. I don’t think it would use a lot of CPU for the PV to update rapidly when the file is only being written every 30 seconds or so. But perhaps I am wrong?
Mark
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Daykin, Evan
Hello,
Apologies in advance if this is in the documentation somewhere, I was unable to find it.
Best,
|