On 26.08.2013 10:54, YLivay wrote:
>
> I'm trying to follow a driver's trace but much too often an event on
> the
> other channel arrives and the trace gets messy and starts jumping back
> and forth, rendering the trace completely unreadable.
>
> My example is going through a heavy user add operation while a modify
> user flows from the connected system. The trace goes back and forth
> between the events and it's hard to tell apart query results and the
> modify event.

It can be very difficult to read a trace from a busy driver, I
understand your problem and have experienced it myself.

> Is there any way to automatically tell when it's hopping from one event
> to the other?
> Should I perhaps limit the driver to 1 thread anyways? Is that even
> possible?

Each channel is independently threaded. So you can't really limit the
driver to 1 thread total. You will always have two channels.

> I thought about using the event-id but from what I've read so far it
> doesn't look
> too consistent and is more a "best effort" type.

The event id is useful for tracking an event in a trace.

It was my understanding that the IDM engine will try and assign an
event-id that includes the driver which originated the change (but only
if that driver is part of the same driverset). Otherwise, it simply
indicates the server which originated the change.

Regardless, the event-id plus the channel indicator should be enough to
get you by.

Colour coding the channels can also help. I use baretail to view my log
files on windows with custom colour/highlighting rules to help make it
easier to distinguish each channel.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex McHugh
NetIQ Knowledge Partner http://forums.netiq.com

Please post questions in the forums. No support is provided via email.

Problem with ID is that it is visible only in the event nds and not in
the actual trace lines,
so till you reach the end of a policy you can't be sure what event
you're tracing.

Isn't there a utility to help read logs and not only display them?


--
YLivay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLivay's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=5678
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=48480

On 26.08.2013 12:44, YLivay wrote:
>
> Problem with ID is that it is visible only in the event nds and not in
> the actual trace lines,
> so till you reach the end of a policy you can't be sure what event
> you're tracing.

You can infer this, by looking at the channel.

There aren't multiple *active* threads within a channel, so the trace
will clearly indicate if it starts processing a new event.

When a policy requires a new thread (for example a query, or a direct
write) the context of the existing thread is saved and the thread is paused.

Then the new thread is processed and once it completes, control is
returned to the original thread.

Take a look at:

https://www.netiq.com/communities/coolsolutions/comprehending-idm-traces-part-1/

and

https://www.netiq.com/communities/coolsolutions/comprehending-idm-traces-part-2/

for more details.

> Isn't there a utility to help read logs and not only display them?

My ex-colleague once talked about writing such a util, I don't believe
he ever got beyond a prototype.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex McHugh
NetIQ Knowledge Partner http://forums.netiq.com

Please post questions in the forums. No support is provided via email.

If you separate the subscriber and publisher, wouldn't
tracing queries and direct commands become a pain?

For example shouldn't a result for a query sent by the subscriber
channel
to the connected application return through the publisher channel as it
needs to go through the schema mapping, input policies etc?
(Not too familiar with IDM, didn't get to test that yet)


--
YLivay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLivay's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=5678
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=48480

If you separate the subscriber and publisher, wouldn't
tracing queries and direct commands become a pain?

For example shouldn't a result for a query sent by the subscriber
channel
to the connected application return through the publisher channel as it
needs to go through the schema mapping, input policies etc?
(Not too familiar with IDM, didn't get to test that yet)


--
YLivay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLivay's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=5678
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=48480

On 26.08.2013 14:14, YLivay wrote:
>
> If you separate the subscriber and publisher, wouldn't
> tracing queries and direct commands become a pain?
>
> For example shouldn't a result for a query sent by the subscriber
> channel
> to the connected application return through the publisher channel as it
> needs to go through the schema mapping, input policies etc?
> (Not too familiar with IDM, didn't get to test that yet)

Schema mapping, input and output policies are not considered to be
exclusively part of either the publisher or subscriber channel.

An event from either channel will normally go through all three of the
components listed above.

I can see there could be advantages to the separate subscriber and
publisher channels. Not sure if it'd be worth the engine, designer