NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
A couple of comments on this thread... 1) I ran into this problem when I was running the web server at Purdue. At one point we were accounting for 20% of all the traffic on the external T1s. At the time, there was a BIG debate over what was considered justified use of Internet bandwidth. At that time, web servers were not considered justified and there was a solid possibility I would have to shut down my web server. As a result of this, Purdue was contemplating charging for bandwidth usage. The one likely scenario was to charge departments only if they exceeded a specific bandwidth limit in terms of megabytes per week. This limit would be set based on average traffic levels. So for email, research related FTP, etc, you wouldn't get charged extra. You still had port connect fees. If you had a web server with a lot of traffic (or IDD), it would essentially act as a bandwidth fine. Luckily for me, this type of monitoring was never implemented. It sounds like issues over paying for bandwidth are being reintroduced. This doesn't surprise me as universities are spending more and more money on Internet bandwidth. Its not like the cost of a Mbit/sec in bandwidth has gone down in recent years. 2) As for NOAAPORT systems, the costs of these systems should come down with time. We continue to investigate newer, faster, cheaper hardware for accessing the NOAAPORT feed. The computer hardware required to handle the feed is getting cheaper. Even the costs of OS software, now that Solaris is essentially free, are coming down. But will this make commercial NOAAPORT systems cheaper?? I don't know. Since I'm at Unisys and we have a commercial NOAAPORT system, I can't really comment or justify the costs of our NOAAPORT system. But the costs are higher than what Mike Dross detailed. The biggest issue not listed in his price list is support. We've found this to be a large cost especially in the commercial world where knowledge of weather data and communication hardware is relatively limited. We have to pass those costs on to the consumer. This may be different in a university environment where these support costs wouldn't be as high, thanks to Unidata and others like those on this list. As for NOAAPORT vendors, I know Planetary Data and Unisys offer LDM solutions. The cost of each setup is roughly the same but not having worked with the Planetary Data system, I can't detail advantages or disadvantages of each system relative to the other. If I remember correctly, their system is a Linux based system whereas ours is Solaris x86 based. I'll let others debate the merits of each system. If anyone has questions about NOAAPORT systems, I'll be glad to answer what I can. ________________________________________________________ Daniel Vietor Mail: devo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Unisys Corp Title: Engineer/Meteorologist 221 Gale Lane Phone: 610-925-5206 Kennett Square PA 19348 Fax: 610-925-5215
ldm-users archives: