So can it be assumed that the sample pqact.confs in the GEMPAK distributions
are similar to what Unidata uses and suggests?
From: ldm-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Donna Cote
Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ldm-users] 20070828: Feature request for LDM (cont.)
We have made use of splitting an otherwise VERY long pqact file into
smaller ones, mostly grouped on feedtype. We have a pqact.conduit, a
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
updated most recently! This way also seems easier, at least, to us.
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.
> (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?
> ldm-users mailing list
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
Senior Research Associate
The Academy for Advanced Telecommunications and Learning Technologies
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3139
Office: (979) 862-3982
Cell: (979) 324-3549
Fax: (979) 862-3983
ldm-users mailing list
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: