[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
20040917: Possible pqact issue in LDM?
- Subject: 20040917: Possible pqact issue in LDM?
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:28:10 -0600
Steven,
>Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:50:51 -0500
>From: "Steven Danz" <address@hidden>
>Organization: Aviation Weather Center
>To: Steve Emmerson <address@hidden>
>Subject: Re: 20040913: Possible pqact issue in LDM?
> Keywords: 200409142045.i8EKjBnJ016694 LDM-6 ldmadmin pqact.conf
The above message contained the following:
> Hello again, had another thought/question on the queue and its
> interaction with pqact. I noticed the some of the
> changes in the pq.c assume that the offsets are ordered.... but are
> they?
The changes to the pq(3) module have removed that assumption. If that's
not the case, then you're using a wrong version of the pq(3) module.
> I seem to remember that the slots in
> the queue are reused, so couldn't the offsets get out of order if the
> next available slot is at an offset lower
> than the last product inserted?
That is the working hypothesis. The behavior of pqact(1) on your system
should verify or contradict it.
> Wasn't sure if the list of available
> slots is always kept sorted in offset order.
It's not.
> Even if they were, could a product be inserted, a slot at a lower offset
> freed up, then a second product inserted
> with an identical timestep to the first? Not sure if a n-way system
> could cause that scenario or if a machine
> could be fast enough on its own to do that.
>
> Just another thought... things are still looking good with the 6.1.1.1!
Keep me posted.
> Thanks again!
>
> Steven
> --
> Senior Software Development Engineer
> Aviation Weather Center (NOAA/NWS/NCEP)
> 7220 NW 101st Terrace, Room 101
> Kansas City, MO 64153-2371
>
> Email: address@hidden
> Phone: 816.584.7251
> Fax: 816.880.0650
> URL: http://aviationweather.gov/
Regards,
Steve Emmerson