NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Yoksas [mailto:yoksas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 10:08 AM To: Robert Mullenax Cc: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: 20070829: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.) Hi Robert, re: >So can it be assumed that the sample pqact.confs in the GEMPAK >distributions are similar to what Unidata uses and suggests? Yes, exactly. Chiz developed the multiple pattern-action file approach, and it has worked very nicely here at the UPC and at a variety of Unidata particpating sites. Cheers, Tom >-----Original Message----- >From: ldm-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Donna Cote >Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 9:42 AM >To: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.) >=20 >David, > >We have made use of splitting an otherwise VERY long pqact file into=20 >smaller ones, mostly grouped on feedtype. We have a pqact.conduit, a=20 >pqact.nexrad, a pqact.exp, etc. > >As Tom said, "It is much better to run several pqacts as long as ..." We = > >also find the benefit of reducing debugging time when something has gone = > >wrong with a pqact action and we know which smaller pqact file was=20 >updated most recently! This way also seems easier, at least, to us. > >Donna > >David Knight wrote: >> 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.=20 >> (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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ldm-users mailing list >> ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: = >http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/=20 >> =20 >--=20 >Donna Cote >Senior Research Associate >The Academy for Advanced Telecommunications and Learning Technologies >Texas A&M University >3139 TAMU >College Station, Texas 77843-3139 >Office: (979) 862-3982 >Cell: (979) 324-3549 >Fax: (979) 862-3983 > >_______________________________________________ >ldm-users mailing list >ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: = >http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/=20 > > >------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EA4D.7CFB9A96 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > ><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> ><HTML> ><HEAD> ><META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = >charset=3Diso-8859-1"> ><META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = >6.5.7638.1"> ><TITLE>RE: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM = >(cont.)</TITLE> ></HEAD> ><BODY> ><!-- Converted from text/plain format --> > ><P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So can it be assumed that the sample pqact.confs in = >the GEMPAK distributions are similar to what Unidata uses and = >suggests?<BR> ><BR> >Thanks,<BR> >Robert<BR> ><BR> ><BR> ><BR> >-----Original Message-----<BR> >From: ldm-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Donna Cote<BR> >Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 9:42 AM<BR> >To: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR> >Subject: Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM = >(cont.)<BR> ><BR> >David,<BR> ><BR> >We have made use of splitting an otherwise VERY long pqact file into<BR> >smaller ones, mostly grouped on feedtype. We have a pqact.conduit, a<BR> >pqact.nexrad, a pqact.exp, etc.<BR> ><BR> >As Tom said, "It is much better to run several pqacts as long as = >..." We<BR> >also find the benefit of reducing debugging time when something has = >gone<BR> >wrong with a pqact action and we know which smaller pqact file was<BR> >updated most recently! This way also seems easier, at least, to us.<BR> ><BR> >Donna<BR> ><BR> >David Knight wrote:<BR> >> I have a more basic question. Is it more efficient to<BR> >> run a single pqact with a large/long/complicated pqact.conf,<BR> >> or, is it better to run several pqact each with a more<BR> >> simple pqact.conf? Each pqact.conf might access the same<BR> >> product and do something different with it, or each<BR> >> pqact.conf might handle particular groups of products.<BR> >> (for example you could have a pqact.conf for each software = >package,<BR> >> or, you could have a pqact.conf for every feedtype.)<BR> >> If one were to split up and reorginise their pqact.conf<BR> >> file would there be a computational advantage or disadvantage<BR> >> to either method?<BR> >><BR> >> I'm just wondering is there a good reason for splitting<BR> >> up a pqact.conf into several smaller files, or would<BR> >> splitting it by inbeded comments serve just as well?<BR> >><BR> >> David<BR> >><BR> >><BR> >> _______________________________________________<BR> >> ldm-users mailing list<BR> >> ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR> >> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: <A = >HREF=3D"http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/";>http://www.unidata.uc= >ar.edu/mailing_lists/</A><BR> >> <BR> >--<BR> >Donna Cote<BR> >Senior Research Associate<BR> >The Academy for Advanced Telecommunications and Learning = >Technologies<BR> >Texas A&M University<BR> >3139 TAMU<BR> >College Station, Texas 77843-3139<BR> >Office: (979) 862-3982<BR> >Cell: (979) 324-3549<BR> >Fax: (979) 862-3983<BR> ><BR> >_______________________________________________<BR> >ldm-users mailing list<BR> >ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR> >For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: <A = >HREF=3D"http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/";>http://www.unidata.uc= >ar.edu/mailing_lists/</A><BR> ><BR> ></FONT> ></P> > ></BODY> ></HTML> >------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EA4D.7CFB9A96-- > >--===============1287242281== >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >_______________________________________________ >ldm-users mailing list >ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: >http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_li > sts/ > >--===============1287242281==-- -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ * Tom Yoksas UCAR Unidata Program * * (303) 497-8642 (last resort) P.O. Box 3000 * * yoksas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Boulder, CO 80307 * * Unidata WWW Service http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/* +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ldm-users archives: