It looks like your timing has improved after all! in your original Python-code you could time every read for each sensor. I have also powered sensors and a read is usually faster than 0.1 seconds. I log in a file if the read took longer than 0.3 seconds, which is almost never the case. I also log in the file if the whole reading loop took longer than 3 seconds, which again is almost never the case.
I also log if the error of the 1wire bus changes. I read 25 sensors every full and every half minute, so maybe you could implement a delay as well and see if things get more consistent. Do you need to read so fast in a loop for you application? What else is running on your machine? You could run top in parallel to your python loop. On 06.08.20 00:20, Mick Sulley wrote: > > OK I've done more testing, owhttpd was running and a web page open, I > closed that and killed owttpd but it didn't seem to make any difference. > > From what you write it seems there's another process accessing the > sensors concurrently. Maybe a kernel driver? Check that first. > > I don't think there is anything else accessing them, lsmod|grep w1 > returned nothing but beyond that I don't know how to find out. > > I just tried running a shell script > owwrite /simultaneous/temperature 1 > sleep 1s > owread /uncached/Temp19/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp20/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp21/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp22/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp23/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp25/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp26/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp27/latesttemp > owread /uncached/Temp29/latesttemp > echo > echo 'Time ' $SECONDS > > I ran it repeatedly, it mostly takes 1 to 2 seconds, but after around > 40 runs there is one that takes around 9 seconds. > > I also ran some tests with Python code and more sensors, again it > looks to be working fine, but every 110 seconds or so it takes about 4 > times as long to read. I looked at the timeout settings but the only > one close to that was presence at 120, so I changed that to 10 and it > made no difference, so it is not that. Any ideas? > > Thanks for your help guys, much appreciated. > > Mick > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Owfs-developers mailing list > Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
_______________________________________________ Owfs-developers mailing list Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
