NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
On 10/28/10 03:59, waldenio almeida wrote:
Dear Peter,
See that you are losing data, more on ingest02 than ingest01, and that the latencies on both machines reach a delay of 3600s many times, when your LDM "gives up", forget about the old products and request for the newer ones. Everytime this happen you lose data.
Muito obrigado, Waldenio!mtr is new to me -- but I like it!! -- and I am seeing occasional packet loss on the order of 1.0 - 1.5% on a few links. None of those links areat my end fortunately. I will investigate but given that this is all TCP, that shouldn't be a *big* problem.
Interesting about the REQ lines - we used to have those lines almost exactly, but since that was everything, we shortened it to the ANY/* lines.
I will change those lines first and tackle the packet loss second.What you say about QoS or packet-shaping is really what it sounds like because at night, traffic doesn't appear impeded.
Thanks for your advice! Peter -- Peter Laws / N5UWY National Weather Center / Network Operations Center University of Oklahoma Information Technology plaws@xxxxxx ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Feedback? Contact my director, Craig Cochell, craigc@xxxxxx. Thank you!
ldm-users archives: