This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Gerry, As has already been pointed out, I did post a script for EXEC from pqact that employs a load balancing file lock that allows one process at a time. It will get the job done, and will protect against falling behind of restart from an outage or queue remake. I'd recommend against piping to a script for generation directly since when you first start up an LDM with an empty queue, you will get a slug of 1 hour's worth of NEXRAD products in short sequence. You would either have several hundred instances of a generation script running, or several hundred scripts waiting for PIPE input. The EXEC action following the FILE action allows you to separate the generation action. It also allows you to control your logic for scenarios when generation may be falling behind. Other alternatives are: 1) Use the 1km radar mosaic GINI and create regional sectors which are fewer than the number of NEXRAD sites (eg from SECTOR or GPMAP). 2) Use a cgi type of web script for on demand access (which may eliminate the need to draw lots of boring images at the expense of drawing some multiple times). An example using the radmap_sw gempak program is available at: http://motherlode.ucar.edu/unidata/images/nids/ The cgi for the above will create the gif file, and then cat it to the browser using an image/gif type for the page. Steve Chiswell On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 20:57, Gerry Creager N5JXS wrote: > Is there any way to pipe the incoming nexrad Level III data to gpmap in > pqact, if one is doing individual sites, so that a system isn't taken to > its knees every time a cron job fires that looks at every site? > > Seems that if we could pipe it, we could spread out the load. Or, am I > missing something fundamental? > > Thanks! > Gerry