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 Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated.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.
Mike, > Thanks Steve: I appreciate the dialog. > > I’ll see about getting into a training workshop. I only started here mid > July so I’m still learning. > > There are many things here that haven’t been updated in terms of software. > That’s what I’m starting to make my way through is the entanglement of old > software. I have been reading the documentation on ldm 4.6.12 and I hope to > download and build it next week. I hope you're referring to LDM 6.12.6 rather than 4.6.12. > I’m debating right now if I should have the sysadmins bring the gcc and perl > up to date on the machines. I’m sure it would help as well, but it’s a long > process to get that done. At any rate it’s one battle at a time as I map out > some milestones for progress. The only necessity is that the perl interpreter be version 5. > I still have some uncertainty about the behavior of ldm. I was under the > impression that memory mapped files were mapped to the virtual memory of the > machine(physical and swap). Part of what is perceived with other users here > in their experience with ldm is that it is a problematic process on a solaris > machine, because when it is running it takes up every bit of the physical > memory. That observation is based on the file size we have configured, so > when running with other processes on the server there is plenty of swapping > going on. I guess what you’re telling me does make sense though in the fact > that although all the physical memory is consumed, there is still swap space > left on the drive, so conceptually the ldm.pq file being memory mapped is > like extending the swap space of the OS. Virtual memory is specific to a process rather than a machine. The LDM product-queue is memory-mapped into the virtual memory of each process that has it open. > I wasn’t getting that impression from reading the documentation online, it > seemed that the transfer was between the memory mapped file and the virtual > memory of the machine, so it made sense to have a swap space large enough to > augment the physical memory of the machine and expand the size of the virtual > memory to be large enough to put a 20G ldm.pq file into a mapping and still > have room left for the other OS processes. Our advice is to have sufficient physical memory to hold the entire product-queue plus the O/S and its buffers. Multiply the size of the product-queue by 3/2 and you should be good. > The reason we have a large file size for the queue is we would like to have > more than an hours worth of time for files. Looking at our stats our mean > retention time right now is about five days. Probably way too much as I > suspected so I’ll definitely consider trimming down the file size of ldm.pq > and see how that effects the performance and delivery. 5 days? Yeah, you can make it smaller. > In the case of attempting to insert a file larger than the ldm.pq size does > that imply that LDM-4 will stop processing files through ldm until it is > restarted, and with an error thrown in LDM-6 will it continue to process or > will it stop ingesting files until restarted as well. If the files are being inserted via pqinsert(1) *and* that process is running *inside* the process-group of the LDM server (by means of an EXEC entry in the LDM configuration-file) then the LDM-4 pqinsert(1) process will likely crash due to a SIGSEGV and take the entire LDM system down with it. An LDM-6 pqinsert(1) processs in the LDM server's process group, however, will simply error-exit and the LDM system will stay up. If the pqinsert(1) process is not in the LDM server's process group, then neither LDM system will terminate. There will be a delay up to 30 seconds, however, before the inserted product is relayed downstream. > The reason I would like to stay with the LDM is that it is in place, it > recognizes file duplication at the insertion point. In my previous email I > was referring to downstream ldm’s that are requesting duplicated file sets > from the up stream. I think if we can get our end to end path configurations > sorted out I believe we can tune the system to meet our needs. Thanks for > the help and if I do get a chance I’ll see about dropping by UCAR after the > first of the year to get a better sense of how I could make ldm work for us. You'd be welcome. > Thanks > -Mike Regards, Steve Emmerson Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: EFY-891334 Department: Support LDM Priority: Normal Status: Closed