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/*
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
