Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)

• To: yoksas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tom Yoksas)
• Subject: Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)
• From: David Knight <knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:10:32 +0000 (GMT)

I have a more basic question. Is it more efficient to
run a single pqact with a large/long/complicated pqact.conf,
or, is it better to run several pqact each with a more
simple pqact.conf? Each pqact.conf might access the same
product and do something different with it, or each
pqact.conf might handle particular groups of products. 
(for example you could have a pqact.conf for each software package,
or, you could have a pqact.conf for every feedtype.)
If one were to split up and reorginise their pqact.conf
file would there be a computational advantage or disadvantage
to either method?

I'm just wondering is there a good reason for splitting
up a pqact.conf into several smaller files, or would
splitting it by inbeded comments serve just as well?

David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)
    • From: Donna Cote
  • [ldm-users] 20070828: 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)
    • From: Tom Yoksas

• References:
  • [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)
    • From: Tom Yoksas