[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20030618: LSU throttling HDS feed to ULM?



Bob,

>Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:18:40 -0500
>From: Robert Leche <address@hidden>
>Organization: Louisiana State University
>To: Steve Emmerson <address@hidden>,
>To: adam taylor <address@hidden>
>Subject: Re: 20030613: LSU throttling HDS feed to ULM?

The above message contained the following:

> I just got off the phone with LSU's network people. And found
> out&nbsp; LSU is not placing any special traffic shaping controls
> on LDM port 388 nor any of the hosts we communicate with.

That's good to know as it means ULM's problem getting HDS data from LSU
lies elsewhere.

We switched ULM's feed of HDS data from LSU to rainbow.al.noaa.gov.
This seems to have cured the latency problem with that feed.

ULM still receives IDS|DDPLUS data from LSU -- and that's going just
fine.

> In fact,
> looking at the flow of traffic places our flow in to and out of the
> same networking. Meaning, The data that feeds Jackson State U, also
> feeds ULM. Same with getting data from Unidata.  Looks like we are all
> I2 users. We are not and have not had&nbsp; network problems to JSUMS,
> only ULM. No problems receiving data from Thelma either.&nbsp; As a
> matter of fact, ULM is unreachable today. The problem seems to be on
> the ULM campus as this trace route indicates:<br>

> <br>
> [ldm@seistan ~]$ /usr/sbin/traceroute tornado.geos.ulm.edu<br>
> traceroute to tornado.geos.ulm.edu (198.202.242.22), 30 hops max, 38 byte
> packets<br>
> &nbsp;1&nbsp; 130.39.188.1 (130.39.188.1)&nbsp; 10.500 ms&nbsp; 13.884 
> ms&nbsp; 3.006 ms<br>
> &nbsp;2&nbsp; lsubr1-118-6509-dsw-1.g1.lsu.edu (130.39.1.20)&nbsp; 1.719 
> ms&nbsp; 2.896 ms&nbsp; 1.346
> ms<br>
> &nbsp;3&nbsp; laNoc-lsubr.LEARN.la.net (162.75.0.9)&nbsp; 7.790 ms&nbsp; 
> 3.387 ms&nbsp; 2.874 ms<br>
> &nbsp;4&nbsp; ulm-laNoc.LEARN.la.net (162.75.0.38)&nbsp; 16.607 ms&nbsp; 
> 15.101 ms&nbsp; 15.425 ms<br>
> &nbsp;5&nbsp; * * *<br>
> &nbsp;6&nbsp; * * *<br>
> &nbsp;7&nbsp; * * *<br>
> &nbsp;8&nbsp; * * *<br>
> &nbsp;9&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 10&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 11&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 12&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 13&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 14&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 15&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 16&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 17&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 18&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 19&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 20&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 21&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 22&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 23&nbsp; * * *<br>
> 24&nbsp; *<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I am &nbsp;not able to ping the ldm host. &nbsp; I will contact Adam Taylor 
> at ULM
> and let him know. Also, when communications are restored, our network people
> indicated a willingness to monitor the connections to ULM (for a short 
> period),
> &nbsp;looking for problems.<br>

Thanks for your help.  We'll keep monitoring ULM as well.  So far,
however, the reception looks good.

Regards,
Steve Emmerson