Please Note This forum exists for community support for the Mango product family and the Radix IoT Platform. Although Radix IoT employees participate in this forum from time to time, there is no guarantee of a response to anything posted here, nor can Radix IoT, LLC guarantee the accuracy of any information expressed or conveyed. Specific project questions from customers with active support contracts are asked to send requests to support@radixiot.com.

Hello @jcaballeroa, sorry for the delay on this topic but could you please open a support request at Radix IoT - Support? I would like to better assist on this topic but access to the files have expired. Also, have you tried to start a clean Mango v5 to see if you have any issue starting up Mango before upgrading?

@jcaballeroa given that the changes implemented appear to be mainly ui focused, I do not think you'll find a better way at this stage. Fox

Thanks @MattFox . We will try this option.

V4 will give you the option is increase the number of threads used for starting data sources. You may also want to think about using MySQL for a system that size. But to answer your question I don't see anything abnormal with that starting time.

@jcaballeroa I was able to replicate it, there is a bug. Once the bug is fixed it will be announced in the forum.

@jcaballeroa Mango 4.0.0 is a paid upgrade.

Basically you cannot represent 30.03 exactly in binary. The publisher is sending the raw value of the data point, which is represented by a Java double as the value you are seeing sent out 30.029... When using a TextRenderer (which only happens for display purposes) you can set it to round the value via the pattern on it. That is why in the UI it looks correct but it is actually stored as 30.029.... (11110.00000111101011100001)₂ = (1 × 2⁴) + (1 × 2³) + (1 × 2²) + (1 × 2¹) + (0 × 2⁰) + (0 × 2⁻¹) + (0 × 2⁻²) + (0 × 2⁻³) + (0 × 2⁻⁴) + (0 × 2⁻⁵) + (1 × 2⁻⁶) + (1 × 2⁻⁷) + (1 × 2⁻⁸) + (1 × 2⁻⁹) + (0 × 2⁻¹⁰) + (1 × 2⁻¹¹) + (0 × 2⁻¹²) + (1 × 2⁻¹³) + (1 × 2⁻¹⁴) + (1 × 2⁻¹⁵) + (0 × 2⁻¹⁶) + (0 × 2⁻¹⁷) + (0 × 2⁻¹⁸) + (0 × 2⁻¹⁹) + (1 × 2⁻²⁰) = (30.02999973297119140625)₁₀

@terrypacker Thanks Terry!!!

Any idea?

Anytime, that's what we're (the forum) here for.