Results 1 to 6 of 6

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kapolei
    Posts
    6
    So, while this fixed the number of updates per second, we're still seeing significant data loss. We've set max bandwidth and updates to 'unlimited':
    * table.setRequestedMaxFrequency('unlimited');
    * lsEngine.policy.setMaxBandwidth('unlimited');
    * <max_delay_millis>0</max_delay_millis>



    In our use case, and "item" is a user's subscription plan ("plastic widgets"). Within a millisecond, we can send a burst of more than 50 updates to this item representing current prices for 50 different types of "plastic widgets". We cannot have LS compress these updates in any way.

    We notice that if we send a burst of updates, we tend to get the first packet and the last packet, but missing all the ones in between, or in othercases just the last packet.

    Example output from the JS:
    /*
    table.onItemUpdate = function(item, updateInfo, itemName) {
    var arr = [];
    for(var i = 0; i < schema.length; i++) {
    var val = updateInfo.getNewValue(schema[i]);
    if(val)
    {
    //data[schema[i]] = val;
    arr.push(schema[i] + ':' + val);
    }
    }
    console.log(arr);
    ....
    */

    Produces....


    ["ric:HGF1", "s_attempt:1919", "s_update:1", "s_total:14", "timestamp:1256721362"]
    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1919", "s_update:14", "s_total:14", "timestamp:1256721363"]
    ["ric:HGH0", "s_attempt:1925", "s_update:6", "s_total:6", "timestamp:1256721364"]
    ["ric:HGV0", "s_attempt:1941", "s_update:13", "s_total:13", "timestamp:1256721371"]
    ["ric:HGM1", "s_attempt:1954", "s_update:1", "s_total:13", "timestamp:1256721375"]
    ["ric:HGV0", "s_attempt:1954", "s_update:13", "s_total:13", "timestamp:1256721375"]
    ["ric:HGM1", "s_attempt:1975", "s_update:1", "s_total:6", "timestamp:1256721384"]
    ["ric:HGX9", "s_attempt:1975", "s_update:6", "s_total:6", "timestamp:1256721384"]
    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1976", "s_update:17", "s_total:17", "timestamp:1256721384"]
    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1977", "s_update:2", "s_total:2", "timestamp:1256721384"]
    ["ric:HGV9", "s_attempt:1978", "s_update:3", "s_total:3", "timestamp:1256721385"]
    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1979", "s_update:2", "s_total:2", "timestamp:1256721385"]
    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:5", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]

    Where,

    s_attempt: a counter representing a single burst of multiple UD3 packets to LS
    s_update: a counter representing a specific UD3 packet within the burst
    s_total: a counter representing the total number of UD3 packets (s_updates) within the burst

    What I would expect to see for burst 1984 is:

    ["ric:HGF0", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:1", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]
    ["ric:HGG1", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:2", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]
    ["ric:HGH2", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:3", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]
    ["ric:HGI3", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:4", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]
    ["ric:HGJ4", "s_attempt:1984", "s_update:5", "s_total:5", "timestamp:1256721387"]

    Instead, I only see the last packet.

    Note attempts: 1919, 1954, 1975 (first and last packet)
    All other attempts only received *last* packet of burst

    What can we do differently to avoid this behavior?


    Best,

    Erik Osterman

  2. #2
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Milan, Italy
    Posts
    521
    Hi Erik,

    For your requirements, you should use "RAW" subscription mode. Is it possible you are currently using "MERGE"?

    On a side note, it is not recommended setting <max_delay_millis> to 0, as this will impose a much higher stress on the network, the server, and the client, without a perceivable advantage for the final user. Even a small value, like 30 ms, is better than 0.

    Cheers,

    Alessandro

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kapolei
    Posts
    6
    Alessandro,

    Right again! The RAW mode is what we wanted. Setting <max_delay_millis/> to zero was just out of frustration. Will bump it up.

    Thanks,

    Erik Osterman

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Single data provider and multiple data sources
    By pluczak in forum Adapter SDKs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 26th, 2012, 10:50 AM
  2. Using tomcat as the web server - no data updates
    By bhathiya in forum Client SDKs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 11th, 2011, 08:38 AM
  3. Updates dropped when restart is performed
    By ctranfd in forum Client SDKs
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 11:45 AM
  4. Data Provider Protocol Method Tags
    By juls in forum Adapter SDKs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 4th, 2009, 09:00 AM
  5. Data Provider question
    By yanhu in forum Adapter SDKs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 25th, 2007, 01:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM.