E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > RDM Developer Forums > RDM Interpretation Questions
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

RDM Interpretation Questions Discussion and questions relating to interpreting and understanding the E1.20 RDM Standard.

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old June 13th, 2013   #14
ericthegeek
Task Group Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 390
Default

> Right, but generating a less than 2ms response will
> not slow down the discovery process, when compared
> to a timeout.

When I talk about speeding up discovery, it's not a really matter of saving a millisecond or so on a timeout vs. a short response. It's about the responder always being ready and able to handle discovery requests. Having to deal with an ACK_TIMER or a BUFFER_FULL condition would really complicate discovery on a large rig. That was the intent anyway.

The way it was written, the text also disallows NACK'ing invalid or corrupt packets (as you might see if there is noise on the DMX wire). If should have been written another way to better reflect the intent, and to allow NACK'ing invalid requests, but at this point we're kinda stuck with it as it's written.

Fortunately, it's a non-issue from what I've seen in real-world systems. Many people first discover this issue when they run the OLA Responder Tests...
ericthegeek is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.