![]() |
|
|||||||
| RDM Timing Discussion Discussion and questions relating to the timing requirements of RDM. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
|
Hi Eric
Separate from EE memory writes, which I agree can be handled as you describe, there are other reasons a responder needs more time e.g. when it is a proxy or bridge/gateway device to where the data should be going. Such a device can indeed store some or even many SET requests but at some point it can lead to an overrun in some practical device, that is the case I meant to be referring to also. To the standard defining folks: With regards to the 10 to 20 ms back-off as Eric is suggesting in practice for a controller to handle the overrun issues, are there plans on integrating in the standard a number as a suggested spec for this, or somehow a way informing a controller on responder capabilities on this point? Leaving this point open and up to implementation can (and probably will) lead to incompatibilities between equipments that in a large part could be prevented by some agreement and future definition on this point. A related aspect to this is also that the real life figure of 5 to 20 ms is often sufficient to handle these situations while the ACK_TIMER has a granularity of 100 ms. These large time chunks lead to extraordinary long delays that can be reduced a lot by allowing, in addition to the current definition, some finer grained timing. Very interested to hear your opinions! Greetings Marc |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | ||
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 390
|
Quote:
Fortunately, assuming a reasonable buffer size in the proxy, these conditions are unlikely to occur in the real world. The fraction of broadcast packets in most RDM systems is relatively small. It's quite rare to see more than a handful of broadcast requests back-to-back. I mostly see broadcast used for: DISCOVER_UNIQUE_BRANCH UNMUTE IDENTIFY OFF The first two are only for discovery, and since proxies handle discovery on behalf of their proxied devices these can be handled immediately in the proxy and don't need to be queued. You may see a Broadcast IDENTIFY OFF sent 3 or 4 times back-to-back by a controller (to mitigate lost or corrupt packets), but you won't see hundreds at once. Quote:
Anyone who's designing a controller that makes heavy use of broadcast packets will need to consider the real-world behavior of proxies. Fortunately, other than test equipment, this kind behavior is very rare. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Is there a minimum required PID list for sub-devices? | p_richart | RDM Interpretation Questions | 4 | November 7th, 2008 01:04 PM |
| broadcast Disvovery Mute/Unute | berntd | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | April 8th, 2008 10:07 PM |