Fwd: timeout

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: W.J. Llope (llope_at_physics.rice.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 18:36:34 EST

hello tonko - just FYI we'll be reducing our timeout setting
from 2sec to <<1sec during next wednesday's access....
add'l comments from john below in case you're interested... regards,
        bill

Delivered-To: llope_at_physics.rice.edu
X-Sender: mitchell_at_lheapop.gsfc.nasa.gov
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:22:43 -0500
To: "W.J. Llope" <llope_at_physics.rice.edu>
From: John Mitchell <John.W.Mitchell_at_nasa.gov>
Subject: timeout
Cc: Frank Geurts <geurts_at_rice.edu>
Status:

Bill,
I don't see any problem with reducing the timeout. The timeout is
only there to make sure that we don't wait forever for a L2. I see
no problem in reducing it to a fraction of a second. The worst that
will happen is that we might trash some events that have a late
arriving L2. I expect that these are a small fraction of the total.

I don't know what our average time to read out an event is. Given
the amount of data that we are processing, I would guess offhand that
we can read out in much less than 10 ms. If so, my suggestion is to
lower the timeout to something like 0.1 sec (from its current 2 sec).
If STAR is running at 100 Hz then that would still be ten times the
expected time between events and something like ten times our read
time. I doubt we would miss many good events with that setting.
John 

-- 

  W.J. Llope, Ph.D.                      Res. Assoc. Professor
  T.W. Bonner Nuclear Laboratory         phone:  713-348-4741
  Rice University, MS-315                fax:    713-348-5215
  6100 S. Main St.
  Houston, TX 77005-1892
             e-mail:     llope_at_physics.rice.edu
             WWW home:   http://wjllope.rice.edu/default.html

--
Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 00:39:32 EDT