[aprssig] APRS IS Issue ?

Stan N0YXV n0yxv at gihams.org
Tue Mar 4 00:09:06 EST 2008

> My fault.  I've been traveling too much, and when home, I've been doing 
> little things like, literally, putting out the RAID shelf fire that cost 
> me 4TB of disk and data.  And doing sysadmin work on a few systems 'til I 
> can get a new-hire in place.  So, simply:
> I dropped the ball.
> I'll try to do better in the future.  I'd coordinated to get the new 
> server up but didn't get everything done.
> Sorry!  Really!  I'll try to take care in the future.

Wasn't looking for a Sorry just interesting in taking a hard look at how to 
do things better in the future. Looks to me like you've done a real good job 
at looking at these issues with an eye toward the future. Some times we have 
to look at the painful past in order to make a better future for us all. 
While I do realize that it's a hobby there are people that depend on APRS 
for things like Search and Rescue.

> Looking simply at the traffic, we did calculate that there'd be adequate 
> hardware and software resources to handle the CWOP data.  We missed a bit 
> of processing information dealing with filter software and hashing. When 
> the Christmas spike occurred, we identified that a problem had been 
> unmasked and started the evaluation process, did additional 
> troubleshooting and determined what the real problems were.
> A recommendation to split CWOP off to its own servers was made a year ago 
> but for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was, at the time we 
> thought load wouldn't be an issue, we (APRS Core sysops and CWOP 
> management) tabled it.  This year, it wasn't really an optional issue 
> anymore.
> I had started doing some planning along these lines and was able to do 
> some quick work to get volunteer servers up 'til CWOP servers can be 
> funded and managed in a different manner.  Again for some good reasons, 
> continuing to fund and operate CWOP servers as pure volunteer efforts 
> isn't a great choice.  We're working on a more permanent arrangement for 
> CWOP servers and management.  We're also faced with the imminent 
> retirement of a key individual in CWOP and his duties will have to be 
> assumed somehow.

Not sure I buy all the explanations about the past history of the CWOP 
program but it does look like at least we have a solution. And since my 
original intent of my comments in this email was a hard look at the past for 
the future gain I think we are on the right track. Just like the weight 
lifters like to say 'No pain, no gain'.

> I'm trying to make sure we don't make these mistakes again while I'm 
> involved.

Since it takes a while to put a new server online might it be a good idea to 
have a plain in place for the next time we get a 30 day notice to remove 
half of the APRS Core Servers? Wouldn't it be nice (I know I'm dreaming now) 
if we could identify people and or facilities that could be ready to go in a 
few days to take up the slack in the event of a large server removal? Or 
even better yet wouldn't it be nice if we had twice the needed capacity so 
that removing half the servers wouldn't have any effect?

> gerry
> -- 
> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
> Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.862.3982 FAX: 979.862.3983
> Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843 

More information about the aprssig mailing list