RE: LDM Archive Machine

• To: akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx, ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: RE: LDM Archive Machine
• From: "Robert Mullenax" <robertmullenax@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 17:40:39 -0500

The following message intended for the ldm-users email list bounced
(non-member address submission).  We are forwarding it along...

------- Forwarded Message

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2001 22:40:39.0601 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[F1034210:01C14092]

It was your mention of kernel faults and crashes which prompted
my e-mail.  I have found that so few people know about Solaris
Intel, that I have taken it upon myself to at least get the word
out.  I certainly agree an archive is needed, but I am just
not sure how practical a feed archive is.  I would think some sort
of large community machine that archived radar, satellite, model
data, obs, u/a would be pretty handy.  We(still work there part time) have 
an upper air/ surface archive at NMSU/NSBF and I have responded to data 
requests before.  Anyway, NMSU/NSBF will help if possible
as a surface/ua data archive.  We are too low on the IDD chain
to ensure that we get all of the data though.

Robert Mullenax



>From: Daryl Herzmann <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: LDM Archive Machine
>Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:26:40 -0500 (CDT)
>
>ALL,
>       My original post was not intended to start a holy war of Linux vs
>Solaris.  We have been down that road and know which side IBM is puttting
>1 Billion Dollars into.  Hehe :)
>
>       Anyway, I realize that if LDM servers would stay on-line and
>internet connections would stay on-line and people would not run IIS which
>take down OC3 lines, we would not need an archive.  There are reasons
>other than Linux stability that make an archive needed in my opinion.
>Your milege may vary...
>
>Later,
>       Daryl
>
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Arthur A. Person wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Robert Mullenax wrote:
> >
> >> Daryl,
> >>
> >> I wish you luck in your endeavor, but IMO, and based on my tests and
> >> observing the e-mails about LDM through the years, the problems with
> >> LDM crashing/kernel problems..etc is due to Linux itself.  It certainly
> >> has the well known problem of crashing under heavy load, whereas
> >> Solaris Intel is virtually bulletproof.  Not to pick on Gilbert,
> >> he's been a great help to me over the years, but his LDM just crashed
> >> again..he hates Solaris but I am 99.9% sure these bouts he has would
> >> go away if he'd switch.
> >
> >Linux may be a little green yet, but, in my opinion, it's poised soon to
> >be the OS of choice for server systems.  Our ldm relay system (no
> >decoding) is RedHat 7.1 with LDM 5.1.3 and it NEVER quits.  Runs
> >flawlessly (ignoring configuration issues).  I also have a second system
> >running RedHat 7.0 that does decoding and file serving.  It too runs
> >nearly flawlessly (I can think of one case where it had a problem a 
>couple
> >months ago that required a reboot, but it's also 7.0... I need to
> >upgrade).  I'm sure Gilbert's problems will be found to be some subtle
> >configuration issue or perhaps a hardware issue, but I don't believe 
>Linux
> >is fundamentally the problem.  Regarding Solaris, at this point I'd never
> >go back.  Solaris is solid but, in my opinion, it's falling behind in
> >development and overall utility.
> >
> >My 2 cents.
> >                                     Art.
> >
> >
> >
> >> At my previous job at NMSU/NSBF we have been
> >> running
> >>  the LDM plus all of the GEMPAK AND McIDAS decoders plus a web server 
>and
> >> GARP/McIDAS sessions on a single CPU Gateway PC running Solaris for 
>over two
> >> years now.  The
> >> only problems that have ever occurred were related to hung gplt 
>routines
> >> caused by my CGI scripts.  These occasional to frequent crashes that
> >> LDM-Linux
> >> boxes all seem to have simply don't occur or rarely occur with Solaris
> >> Intel.
> >> Performance is fine as well..and as CPU usage approaches 100% you'll 
>see
> >> Solaris
> >> surpass Linux.
> >>
> >> Anne can correct me on this but Unidata is running an incredible amount 
>of
> >> stuff on their dual PIII Solaris machines and have never had a problem.
> >>
> >> Linux has it's place, but with this particular application (the
> >> LDM/decoders)
> >> it simply fails more often than it should.  If you continue to have 
>problems
> >> I would suggest that you at least look into Solaris x86.  Solaris will 
>run
> >> on the Athlon, depending on the particular motherboard.  We had a 
>network
> >> problem at NMSU/NSBF which caused us always to lose a bunch of data.  I
> >> eventually
> >> arranged for our feed to set his ldm to 5400 seconds as I did mine to 
>cut
> >> down on that a bit..then when I needed data I put out a call on this 
>e-mail
> >> list or the needdata list.  There are many people archiving out there.
> >>
> >> In any event, good luck, to you.
> >>
> >>  /**
> >>   * Daryl Herzmann (akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> >>   * Program Assistant -- Iowa Environmental Mesonet
> >>   * http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu
> >>   */
> >>
> >
> >Arthur A. Person
> >Research Assistant, System Administrator
> >Penn State Department of Meteorology
> >email:  person@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, phone:  814-863-1563
> >
>
>--
>/**
>  * Daryl Herzmann (akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>  * Program Assistant -- Iowa Environmental Mesonet
>  * http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu
>  */
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


------- End of Forwarded Message