[nos-bbs] Interested in REPEAT packet statistics?

[George [ham] VerDuin]

Good to hear from a 53 New Yorker driver [rider?] Barry.

Barry wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:39:34 -0400, "George \[ham\] VerDuin"
> <k8rra at ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> I have no intent to present WHAT the problem is, nor how to
>> address whatever the problem might be.
>>     
>
> Oh this is fun!  A riddle.  I love riddles!
>
>   
>> The only issue the stats address is:
>>
>> *Does a problem with re-transmission exist during the period 
>> of study.*
>>     
>
> I answer "yes".
>
> (Is that the correct answer?)
>   
Maybe -- I guess it depends on how irritated you get while 
retransmission goes on and you wait for response from jnos.  I've seen 
it bad enough that jnos fails to connect to users on the remote 
stations.  The radio gets blamed but the radio is not at fault [in the 
samples I collected].

I can honor a NO answer,  and appreciate that I'm talking to a very 
patient person.


> [snippo]
>
>   
>> Remember -- Automotive engineers gave us the idiot light, they
>> didn't choose to tell us oil pressure is low.
>>     
>
> POI (point of information) for the net... At least some cars
> that were manufactured in the 1950s had oil pressure gauges.
> I remember that the car my parents had (a 1953 Chrysler New
> Yorker) did.
>   
My Ford did too, and somewhere along the line they trained me that the 
pointer in the red was a bad thing.  I miss those days for only one 
reason -- by gaining experience with the gage one might predict dooms 
day as everything wore out.

> That was BEFORE automotive engineers determined we were idiots.
> Once they determined we were idiots, THEN they gave us the
> idiot light and chose not to give us any real or useful
> information anymore.  At that point, some people started
> enjoying being idiots.  Those that didn't enjoy that sort of
> thing simply got used to it, and to this day, we still have
> the idiot light.
>
>   
>> SO -- On the *single* issue of "Does a problem exist"
>> Not how big is it
>> Not where is it
>> Not what caused it
>>     
>
> I think I'm starting to get the picture even though my idiot
> light is burned out!
>   
Actually -- the engineers did not see fit to provide a light on nos [and 
that is not derogatory -- their focus is elsewhere].  If you look at the 
jnos status output there is measurement of re-transmission count.  It 
would be up to you as an interested sysop to get out your calculator and 
graph paper to track that number over time and circumstance.  It's not 
like the gage either because there is no red/green part on the dial.

Consider for a moment:  In the absence of some gage how can you expect 
some response?

One significant difference between my original stats and the jnos output:
  jnos displays transmits
  my stats are based on input (receives)
I suspect the focus on incoming data is more appropriate than output.

>   
>> Especially not what to do about it.
>> What do you say?
>>     
>
> I say that I really enjoy riddles!
>
> [snippo]
>
>   
>> I very much appreciate that in order to change performance
>> much more detail is required about whatever causes a degrade
>> in performance.
>>     
>
> I appreciate that.
>
>   
>> I'll discuss the what in later email, for now just focus on
>> *when*.
>>     
>
> Where?
>   
Right here in River City...
Remember those lyrics?

Henry Hill was trying to sell trombones.
I'm trying to find a consensus for when we as sysops must react to "too 
many re-transmissions..."

For myself I have an answer.  The hard part of the solution is that it 
requires broader participation. 

Cheers.
Skip