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: Structured PVs archiving and archived data retrieval problem |
From: | Sky Brewer via Tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
To: | "tech-talk at aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>, "ales.kete at i-tech.si" <ales.kete at i-tech.si> |
Cc: | "tech-talk at aps.anl.gov" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
Date: | Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:26:57 +0000 |
Hi Ales, How complete is support for structured PVs in EPICS archiver appliance and aaclient tools (more details below)? Archiver Appliance 1.1.0 had support for storing all pvAccess structures and some minimal retrieval in json. Archiver Appliance 2.0.5+ has support for storing all pvAccess structures and I believe complete retrieval with
json. To fetch the data from the archiver using json you go to something like: I think the postprocessors that should work are:
I agree with Michael that I don’t think any client has support for these structures, but it should be possible to add support. The data is stored as the pvAccess structure then the data itself, so to unpack the data is
quite easy. The Archiver uses
https://github.com/archiver-appliance/epicsarchiverap/blob/master/src/main/org/epics/archiverappliance/data/ByteBufSampleValue.java to convert the structure to json. Maybe I’ll add it to py-epicsarchiver…. But I agree with Michael for NTTable its best to split up and make a pv for each array to be archived, as generally it works better with all the tools.
In terms of alternatives the Archiver Appliance, I would like to ask if you want a new feature or improvement to the Archiver Appliance to please open tickets!
https://github.com/archiver-appliance/epicsarchiverap/issues And or support more development! I think adding support for more Normative Types makes sense, but its good to get a ticket
to follow up on testing etc. But to be fair when I did a review of alternatives I found:
Hope that helps, Sky |