[aprssig] Tier 2 Status

[AE5PL Lists]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dimse
> Posted At: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Tier 2 Status
> 
> Were all the core servers to go down, you would have a bunch 
> of non-connected tier two servers. This in fact is one of my 
> principle objections to tier 2. The user gets little feedback 

???  If all the core servers go down, there is still some level of
connectivity which would not exist at all if everyone connected to the
core servers.  You are objecting to people have some level of
connectivity over none?

> For example, say a typical tier 2 server has some sort of 
> problem with its connection to tier 1. As a user, you are 
> connected to a network, but have no idea your APRS universe 
> is limited to those people connected to the same server. On 

Ok, and just what kind of permanent connection problem to Tier 1 where
the connections to the Tier 2 server would not also be lost would be
circumvented by connecting directly to the Tier 1 servers?  None (or an
infinitesimally small probability).

> the other hand, someone using the core is either connected or 
> not, if you are connected to a server you are connected to 
> everyone. If you are not connected, your program tells you 
> that information.

Not really.  That is why everyone put timeout timers in the client
software: core servers were going quiet without telling anyone (until
javAPRSSrvr) or connections were being severed without proper disconnect
sequence (still happens).

> 
> With core connections for the two clients, the odds are 33.3% 
> one hop and 66.7% two hops.

These are meaningless statistics.  You are using an incorrect
supposition that the Internet is a monolithic entity and that the
weakest link is the APRS-IS server!  Do a trace route sometime and see
how many single points of failure your connection goes through.  Your
numbers are nonsensical.

> The argument for the tier 2 system is usually the core can't 
> support the number of connections currently in APRS. As it 
> stands now, that is a true statement, but that is simply 
> because the core has not attempted to provide that much core 
> capacity, instead the system keeps pace just with the number 
> of users on the core. I believe two more servers in the core 
> (which would bring the odds to 20% one hop and 80% two hops) 
> would be adequate. The core servers do need to be on very fat 
> pipes, but servers in such locations are available, every 
> time I need a server location I get several good offers from 
> people here on the sig.

Hate to burst your bubble Steve since you have been out of the
operational side of APRS-IS for years now, but adding two more core
servers doesn't accomplish anything other than _minimally_ spreading the
core load out to two more servers.  When ever a fourth server was added,
it received a fraction of the load found on the other servers.  And I am
sorry, but the core sysops are providing superb capacity for _free_.
Fat pipes are only one issue.  Seems to me that you shut down the
www.aprs.net server because too many people were using it.  You sure are
liberal in offering up other peoples' facilities and criticizing them
when they don't meet your ill-informed expectations.

Instead of fighting second tier servers which aren't going away and
which are providing a very quality service to the APRS community, why
don't you spend your time on something productive like continuing to
improve findU which you do very well.

73,

Pete Loveall AE5PL
mailto:pete at ae5pl.net