Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?

From: Sascha Wildner <swildner@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:21:28 +0200

Corey R Clingo schrieb:
> In some testing of another program I wrote awhile back, I discovered the 
> BPCSTM caution you mentioned.  It endlessly looped, and with the BPCSTM at 
> the default of 100, it reduced the IDLETM of a CP on our test system 
> something like 40% (!)

I really wonder why the default doesn't just get fixed.

-- 
Sascha Wildner
erpicon Software Development GmbH
Neusser Str. 724-726
50737 Köln
Germany

Phone:  +49 221 9746089
Fax:    +49 221 9746099
Mobile: +49 174 9887655
eMail:  swildner@xxxxxxxxxx
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Follow-Ups:

[foxboro] Modbus Communications
From: Scott Matus

References:
- Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
  - From: Corey R Clingo

Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?

Other related posts: