Tim
I believe I'm the one who related the architecture, and apologies if I
got it wrong: My notes are in Texas and I'm in Wisconsin... shivering.
My concerns about the architecture have to do with the historical basis
of SRH outages, which have largely resolved now. Still, I think we need
to discuss a possible alternative, or perhaps an extension to the
current architecture that isn't solely NOAA-controlled, but which is
considered compliant with any reasonable requirements for reliability
and accessibility. As with the data cache service I've provided at Texas
A&M, it's the idea of getting a bit more redundancy than was recognized,
or was affordable, at the outset. Sometimes, a little investment goes a
long way.
I'll prepare something and forward it your way over the next week... my
typing is suffering for at least that long after shoulder surgery, so my
error rate is up and my typing bandwidth is reduced. However, I do have
some ideas, which I've brought up before, that I think remain viable for
distributing data to .edu's and some of the smaller private sector
users... but robust enough to potentially backstop the "more official"
systems. The key is access to the data early in the flow, rather than
waiting 'til it's gone to one of the top-tiers, in essence creating
another top-tier with a different mission statement.
The new architecture as I understand it was an overall architectural
improvement, but retained some potential failure modes that could be
mediated for little cost.
Merry Christmas!
gerry
Tim.D.Crum wrote:
All,
I just now opened my first emails related to the "outage." I notice no
announcements from the TOC during the period.
I saw notes about the new architecture is not robust enough, but
confusion on what the architecture is. Please see a related article in
our NEXRAD NOW available at: http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/, page 6.
Please tell me more about alternative architectures that were proposed,
I am not sure I saw them. Does anyone have stats on the
pre-architecture vs post-architecture Level II reliability and
latencies? How about the times of the outage?
Tim
?
On 12/23/2010 10:07 PM, ldm-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Send ldm-users mailing list submissions to
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.unidata.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ldm-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ldm-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
ldm-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ldm-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Nationwide level 2 data outage underway... (Gerald Creager)
2. Re: LDM v6.9 (Gilbert Sebenste)
3. LDM 6.9.0 released (Steve Emmerson)
4. Re: LDM 6.9.0 released (Ben Cotton)
5. Re: LDM 6.9.0 released (Gilbert Sebenste)
6. Re: LDM 6.9.0 released (Ben Cotton)
7. Re: LDM 6.9.0 released (Gilbert Sebenste)
8. One more thing about LDM 6.9.0... (Gilbert Sebenste)
9. 6.9.0 (wx professor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:30:43 -0600
From: Gerald Creager<gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx>
To: Gilbert Sebenste<sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ldm-users] Nationwide level 2 data outage underway...
Message-ID:<4D13BF83.2040809@xxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Tim will almost certainly get the message...
FOr the record, though, unless things have changed, all data now goes to
redundant servers at SRH and MAX gigapop (or perhaps TOC), from whence
it's distributed to OU, Purdue, ECREN, and from THOSE to downstream
customers.
I've suggested strongly to NWS OCIO that this was not a robust network
design but I probably wasn't circumspect enough... they didn't want to
look at alternatives.
I'm still seeing significant latency in completion of the data. I'm
going to try to ascertain where we're currently feeding (OU is my BEST
source but not my only one) and see if there's an upstream ntp problem
or bandwidth contention problem.
gc
Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Jeff Lake - Admin wrote:
better check again Ray
ldmadmin watch -f nexrad2
is null and void here
It just started flowing via TAMU. Huh. Odd.
*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste
********
(My opinions only!)
******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois
University ****
E-mail:
sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ***
web:
http://weather.admin.niu.edu **
*******************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
_______________________________________________
ldm-users mailing list
ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
--
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
