I'm trying to make a state machine in which I want to build a retry and max attemps feature. Let me explain, so far I have this:
From SAVED, I want to go to VALIDATED, although if there is an error, it has to go to AWAITING_VALIDATION state. After 3 minutes, try again to VALIDATED state.
Did I have correctly set up retry mechanism?
After 3 attemps, I want to go back to SAVED state (and pause state machine). Is it possible to do that in a fancy waty (e.g using spring state machine) or do I have to do this manually using some kind of a cache?
Thanks for your help
There are probably many ways to do these things with different machine configurations but having said that, this is such a clearly presented guestion that I wanted to spend some time on it.
You are close and you missed some things(I'd say tricks) to make this happen. Answer is to use extended state variables to add memory into a machine. These variables are usually used to limit number of needed stated to represent what machine needs to do. You need 3 loops and you could probably create more states to represent each loop and transition(with specific guards) to those as needed. However this will simply explode state configuration if you need more loops like 10 or 20 or 100+.
I created an example in ssm-sample3 which is showing how extended state variables and different guards and actions can be used to drive this specific flow.
Unfortunately there is a bug in a current 1.1.1.RELEASE which prevents you to directly transition from a AWAITING_VALIDATION into HAS_ERROR junction and loop until you pause into VALID using an anonymous transition having a guard(that's why sample has a dummy TMP state which is not needed with 1.2.x).
This is probably something I'd like to add as an example or faq to our ref docs.
Lemmy know if this helps.
Related
I would like to know if there is a proper method to track memory accesses
across multiple resources at once. For example I set up a simple dual core CPU
by advancing the simple.py from learning gem5 (I just added another
TimingSimpleCPU and made the port connections).
I took a look at the different debug options and found for example the
MemoryAccess flag (and others), but this seemed to only show the accesses at
the DRAM or one other resource component.
Nevertheless I imagine a way to track events across CPU, bus and finally memory.
Does this feature already exist?
What can I try next? Is it and idea to add my own --debug-flag or can I work
with the TraceCPU for my specified use?
I haven't worked much with gem5 yet so I'm not sure how to achieve this. Since until now I only ran in SE mode is the FS mode a solution?
Finally I also found the TraceCPUData flag in the --debug-flags, but running
this with my config script created no output (like many other flags btw. ...).
It seems that this is a --debug-flag for the TraceCPU, what kind of output does this flag create and can it help me?
I need some suggestions. I am trying to implement an online order process through Spring state machine and am trying to construct a state diagram before I get to work. Now say my order can be canceled by three different admin users CanceledByAdmin1,CanceledByAdmin2 and CanceledByAdmin3. Should I make them substate of Cancel state or create three different states? Keeping in mind that all canceled states are the final states and independent of each other, I don't know if making substates does anything other than simplifying the paper diagram. Any help would be appreciated.
What comes for Spring Statemachine we can have only one terminate state and trying to make that as collection of substates is a bit awkward because once you enter it, state machine should stop all processing. Thought this area is something what I've probably overlooked and could try to enhance things.
While you could probably have a state S1 having three substates S11/S11E,S12/S12E andS13/S13E with triggerless transition from S11 to S11E and same with other substates, even this feels a bit weird because none of those would actually terminate root state machine.
I guess question is what you're trying to accomplish?
If you only want to keep that information around who/which cancelled the order, could you use a simple single terminate state and during a transition to that terminate state, add/modify extended state variables with this info.
Extended state variables are usually used to overcome these problems of suddenly having astronomical count of states to keep arbitrary information around. I know that in this example you only have three, but what about if you have 10, or 100? If you actually need to add even one more, you need to change state machine configuration and recompile. With extended state variables you would not need to do that.
I am a relative beginner at SSIS so I may be doing something silly.
I have a process that involves looping over a heterogenous queue and processing the objects 1 at a time. The process is currently being done in 'set logic' and its dropping stuff. I was asked to rework it in a looping manner, so that decision has been made for me.
I have chosen to implement queue logic in 1 package and the actual processing in another package.
This is all going relatively well considering...
I now have the process up and running, but its slow. 9 seconds per item. Clearly I cant present this solution. :-)
One thing i notice, 1.5 - 2 seconds of each loop are on the ExecutePackage Task in the queue loop.
I cant figure out how to get a hard number, I am using the flashing green box method of performance tuning. The other steps seem to be very fast. Adding indexes, changing sql to sps, all the usual tricks have helped.
Is the UI realiable at all with regards to boxes turning white/yellow/green? Some tasks report times in the progress tab, some dont seem to. So I am counting yellow time.
Should calling a subpackage be that expensive? 1 change i made was I change 'RunInASeparateProcess' to FALSE. I did that because the subpackage produces the following message otherwise:
Error: 0xC0012024 at Script Task: The task "Script Task" cannot run on this edition of Integration Services. It requires a higher level edition.
Task failed: Script Task
The reading i have done seems to advocate multiple packages. Anyone have any counter patterns? Should i stay the course? I started changing to 1 package. Copy/paste doesnt seem to work well w/ SequenceContainers. I would also need to recreate all the variables in the parent package. Doable, but im not sure that is the answer.
Does anyone know of any tuning resources/websites/books they would be willing to share.
Update - I have been tearing things down in an effort to figure out what the problem is. I was thinking it was the package configurations passing variable values. I dont think that is it. I can pass variables to another package w/ nothing in it and it is fast.
I can make the trivial subpackage slow by adding the two connection managers to it.
I suddenly realize I may be making and breaking a connection to both an Oracle Server and a SQL server in both the main package and then the sub package.
Am I correct in this observation?
Is there any way I can reuse the connection between the two packages?
When i google it, most of what i see is suggestions for passing the connection string.
UPDATE - I combined the two packages into one. This performance is not about 1.25 seconds per item, down from about 9. the only thing i can point to that changed is i am now reusing a single connection instead of making multiple connections.
Thanks, I appreciate any help you are kind enough to offer.
Greg
Once you enable logging, I'd suggest running the package from a command window using dtexec. While that doesn't perfectly duplicate the server environment, it does have the advantages of (a) eliminating BIDS as a potential performance issue and (b) being something you can do without jumping through change control hoops.
When I'm debugging, I'm usually looking at about 5000 processes, each of which could be one of about 100 gen_servers, fsms, etc. If I want to know WHAT an erlang process is, I can do:
process_info(pid(0,1,0), initial_call).
And get a result like:
{initial_call,{proc_lib,init_p,5}}
...which is all but useless.
More recently, I hit upon the idea (brace yourselves) of registering each process with a name that told me WHO that process represented. For example, player_1150 is the player process that represents player 1150. Yes, I end up making a couple million atoms over the course of a week-long run. (And I would love to hear comments on the drawbacks of boosting the limit to 10,000,000 atoms when my system runs with about 8GB of real memory unused, if there are any.) Doing this meant that I could, at the console of a live system, query all processes for how long their message queue was, find the top offenders, then check to see if those processes were registered and print out the atom they were registered with.
I've hit a snag with this: I'm moving processes from one node to another. Now a player process can have 3 different names; player_1158, player_1158_deprecating, player_1158_replacement. And I have to make absolutely sure I register and unregister these names with precision timing to make sure that a process is always named and that the appropriate names always exist, AND that I don't try to register a name that some dying process already holds. There is some slop room, since this is only used for console debugging of a live system Nonetheless, the moment I started feeling like this mechanism was affecting how I develop the system (the one that moves processes around) I felt like it was time to do something else.
There are two ideas on the table for me right now. An ets tables that associates process ids with their description:
ets:insert(self(), {player, 1158}).
I don't really like that one because I have to manually keep the tables clean. When a player exits (or crashes) someone is responsible for making sure that his data are removed from the ets table.
The second alternative was to use the process dictionary, storing similar information. When my exploration of a live system led me to wonder who a process is, I could just look at his process dictionary using process_info.
I realize that none of these solutions is functionally clean, but given that the system itself is never, EVER the consumer of these data, I'm not too worried about it. I need certain debugging tools to work quickly and easily, so the behavior described is not open for debate. Are there any convincing arguments to go one way or another (other than the academic "don't use the _, it's evil" canned garbage?) I'd be happy to hear other suggestions and their justifications.
You should try out gproc, it's a very convenient application for keeping process metadata.
A process can be registered with several names and you can associate arbitrary properties to a process (where the key and value can be any erlang term). Also gproc monitors the registered processes and unregisters them automatically if they crash.
If you're debugging gen_servers and gen_fsms while they're still running, I would implement the handle_info functions for these behaviors. When you send each process a {get_info, ReplyPid} tuple, the process in question can send back a term describing its own state, what it is, etc. That way you don't have to keep track of this information outside of the process itself.
Isac mentions there is already a built in way to do this
Does midiOutPrepareHeader, midiInPrepareHeader just setup some data fields, or does it do something that is more time intensive?
I am trying to decide whether to build and destroy the MIDIHDR's as needed, or to maintain a pool of them.
You really have only two ways to tell (without the Windows source):
1) Profile it. Depending on your findings for how long it takes, have a debug-only scoped timer that logs when it suddenly takes longer than what you think is acceptable for your application, or do your pool solution. Though the docs say not to modify the buffer once you call the prepare function, and it seems if you wanted to re-use it you may have to modify it. I'm not familiar enough with the docs to say one way or the other if your proposed solution would work.
2) Step through the assembly and see. Don't be afraid. Get the MSFT public symbols and see if it looks like it's just filling out fields or if it's doing something complicated.