[evla-sw-discuss] Delay models to station boards

[Brent Carlson]

I assert that it is vital that the CMIB generate a logged message
indicating that models are missing and that it is fly-wheeling, as per the
method Sonja proposes.  Not doing so puts data quality continuously in
serious question, imho.

Brent

PS.  My hunch is that binary format for the models will be required. 
Maybe my impression is unreasonably skewed, but the GUIs are awefully slow
sometimes, and I my feeling is that it is because of all of that ASCII xml
(but maybe it is graphics refresh so I could be wrong).  Refreshing the
main BB GUI takes between 3 and 5 seconds...

>
> On May 14, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Sonja Vrcic wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Barry Clark wrote:
>>> Kevin has a valid point that we don't know whether datagrams will
>>> work
>>> adequately without a test.  However, I don't see how to arrange a
>>> realistic test without having the whole correlator room networking in
>>> place.  (Although actually, I am more concerned that datagrams might
>>> get lost within the mchost stack than I am about the network.)  What
>>> should we do to test deliveries?   (At a minimum, we should put a
>>> sequence
>>> number in the document.)
>>>
>>>
>> Proposal: User should specify how often the models are sent, either in
>> advance, as a part of the subarray configuration; or in the delay
>> model
>> itself (by specifying how long the model is valid). If the (next)
>> delay
>> model is not received on time, CMIB generates an alert.
>
>
> This would be more work for the CMIB and more complexity for the
> system.  Policing the rest of the system should not be in the CMIB's
> job description.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> evla-sw-discuss mailing list
> evla-sw-discuss at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evla-sw-discuss
>