NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
TimI 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 hereIt 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor 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
ldm-users archives: