[nos-bbs] Interested in REPEAT packet statistics?

[Barry]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 13:06:51 -0400, "George \[ham\] VerDuin"
<k8rra at ameritech.net> wrote:

> Yo Barry.

Yo, Skipee

> On 04/15/2010 10:34 AM, Barry wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:20:37 -0400, "George \[ham\] VerDuin"
>> <k8rra at ameritech.net>  wrote:
>>    
>>> 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 have found in the past that the level of irritation generally
>> increases proportionately (or possibly exponentially) with the
>> number of retransmissions.
>   
> As have I.
> The other thing I see is that all who wait don't know what they
> are waiting for.

Perhaps they are waiting for Godot?

> Now stats are very much after-the-fact.
> In fact, they can't be looked at soon because they would no
> longer be stats.
> Sad.

Extremely.

> But there is also a convenience to stats -- look whenever you
> get the urge.  Then when the time is right the sysop who reads
> the stats can ponder the cause.

That seems to be the best way to proceed.

>>> I can honor a NO answer, and appreciate that I'm talking
>>> to a very patient person.
>> 
>> I've heard that patience is a virtue.  I wonder if that is
>> really true?  Anything that can help to decrease global
>> irritation is a good thing.
> 
> You bet.
> But too much patience leads one into missing things.
> So each of us set our own threshold..

I knew there was a catch somewhere, dog-gone it!

> Remember the original question?

Not really.

>    => How many?
> 
> The simplest answer is:
> 
>    ==> Just the right amount -- no more / no less.
> 
> It's a deep study to achieve the simplest answer, most
> don't want to venture there.

It's really as simple as that?

> They depend on the wisdom of:
> 
>    1) the software engineer to design the best protocol.
>    2) the sysop to set appropriate configuration.
> 
> Unfortunately...
> 
>> Do the sysops who must react to "too many re-transmissions"
>> also need to be interested?  It may be easier to find
>> sysops who aren't interested than it is to find sysops who
>> are.
> 
> SLAM DUNK.
> 
> Not only sysops but leadership too.
> Maybe too much ego or something, I doubt it is laziness.

But it could also be the "set it" and "forget it" mentality
at work here!  You never know.

> If you dig up a sysop who wants to look at his own stats,
> introduce us?

They are few and far between.  I looked for those sysops
over a period of many years and couldn't find but just a
small handful who really wanted to "know".  So I gave up
trying.

I am glad we had this public chat.  My feeble mind did not
permit me to fully grasp or completely understand the
subject matter at hand, but I never let something as trivial
as that prevent me from engaging in a spirited discussion
with those who are willing to share their wisdom.

> Meanwhile -- may the force be with ya.

And you too, young Skywalker!

> Skip

-- 
73, de Barry, K2MF >>
k2mf at ptd.net

Einstein's definition of insanity:

"Doing the exact same thing over and over again,
expecting different results."