Ivolume license code4/6/2023 ![]() Using static IPs for all my devices helped a great deal as well - Modero panels don't seem to get along with all DHCP servers very well. By cutting way back on the frquency of channel and level updates, I have cut back on this nasty cycle considerably. Sometimes it recovers on its own, but most I have to reboot the central master, it all depends on the timing. The offline event finally occurs, but the damage is done - the overloaded message queue has caused other devices to fall off line, starting another cycle of this. If it was a particulary busy set of updates, the queue becomes overloaded, impacting system performance. An offline event does not occur immediately, and the master resends messages, stacking them up in the queue. The problem seems to be this: a device goes off line while one of the masters is sending it something. I need to make it go forever, and I am looking at a few cases where I still have shared virtuals. I have never been able to point to a single cause for this, but by cleaning up feedback methods, I have got it to where it will now go 5-6 weeks without a hang. Right now I am just not seeing an up side to combining with a virtual on a continuing basis - they just don't seem to work quite right.Īll of this points back to a large system (7 masters so far, and 22 panels three area-centered controllers and four local systems that need to talk to the central ones) I have that was at one time bogging down into slow motion every other day due to a overloaded message queue. I'd also like to hear if I have somehow missed something in my conclusion that combined DEVs = bad the only time I am using them now is when I can do the combines dynamically and on demand (in which case, they are pretty much inactive most of the time). Since most of these observations have taken place in rushed conditions and a high-pressure environment, I'd be curious if anyone else has noticed the same inconsistencies between combined virtuals and uncombined DEV arrays, or if my observations are flawed (like I saw something screwy once, jumped to a conclusion, and now have that idea wrongly in my head). These observations have led me to the conclusion that it is always better to use a DEV array without combining DEVs, or the array itself, to a virtual. This, by allrights, should happen with a combined virtual as well, but doesn't seem to, at least not consistently.Ĥ) Channel changes (and levels) to a combined virtual seem to attempt to go out to the real device if it's online or not (I am real iffy on this one, I thought I saw this happening, but it's tough to verify in the conditions where I think I saw it). ![]() I had to abandon the approach, it was too wonky in a user environment.ģ) Channel changes to a DEV array update when individual devices in the array go on and off line, without regard to when the change really occurred - as if a table of the channel states were kept in the master, and the array element devices were automatically kept up-to-date. This is by no means consistent - I had a combined virtual with a good 60 buttons on it, and about 20 of them were ON when the real panel rebooted. To sync them with the virtual, an ON, then an OFF needs to be sent to the virtual channels. I've noticed this mostly in the converse: a group of buttons combined with a virtual panel, when the real panel is rebooted, are ON, even thought the virtual channels are not. Yet if I replace vdvVirtual with a real device, they only go out when iVolume changes.Ģ) Channel changes sent to a virtual update the virtual, but if an actual device is combined with it, and goes on line after the channel change, it does not always reflect the change even though the virtual does. So if I have a TIMELINE (or in mainline, not that I would ever do such a thing) feedback segment that says: I have not really been able to take the time to properly test my conclusions, and I am wondering if anyone else has made the same observations, or can contribute an alternate reason for my conclusions.ġ) SEND_LEVELS and CHANNEL feedback are always updated on virtual devices, but not on actual devices unless they actually change. ![]() In my never ending search for ways to cut back on uneccessary message queue loading, I have made the following observations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |