20040122: 20040119: Setting up and LDM on an AMRC machine at McMurdo (cont.)

>From: Matthew Lazzara <address@hidden>
>Organization: SSEC 
>Keywords: 200401221843.i0MIhIp2023587

Hi Matthew,

>Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

No problem, I had plenty to do :-)

>Thanks for the TCP port 
>number. No worries on the byte count - that is going to be a part of 
>this test.

OK.

>With regards to the SIP, I should be all set - but I do welcome your 
>input, and you will be more than welcome to review what I put together 
>to make sure it is a.o.k.

OK.  Please send this along when you get it to a point that you want
someone else to look it over.

>With regards to the machine - using the Wisconsin IDD injection machine, 
>I'm curious as to why?

The machine, unidata2, is a 4-processor E450 with 1 TB of RAID.  It is
already injecting the UNIWISC, IDS|DDPLUS, HDS, and NNEXRAD datastreams
into the IDD.  I figured that surface observations from Antarctica
might fit in with the existing IDS|DDPLUS feed, so what better place to
add the data than an inject node for the data.

>Perhaps I should ask, what data do you preceive 
>having on the general IDD from the US Antarctic Program?  UW AWS Data? 
>SPAWAR/ATS AWS Data? AMPS model output? What of higher resolution 
>Antarctic composites?

Any/all or none depending on what you folks and the community at-large
want.  I want to be as flexible as need be to distribute the data to
as many folks that want it as possible.

>In thinking about the use of LDM - it well may work out to be the way to 
>get data from the NCAR MMM/AMPS group to the ice, to me at Wisconsin, to 
>SPAWAR in Charleston, as well as a way to get AWS data piped between the 
>groups as well.  It may even replace AMRC's use of ADDE for moving data 
>around as well between the ice and Wisconsin.  I guess I'm not sure how 
>much of this type of data is desired on the general IDD.

I don't know either.  This is something we will have to learn as we
go along.  I just feel that the observations from Antarctica are
massively underused.  I can't help but think that the NSF would be
happy to see the data in wider circulation/use.  I am sensitive, at
the same time, to the needs of the folks current using the data for
research.

>Don't get me 
>wrong, I'd *love* to see more Antarctic stuff on the IDD. Over the years 
>it has been not practical to do more, and with the development of ADDE, 
>you and I agreed that having the composites on an ADDE server was 
>fine...and fits in with the THREDDS idea.

Absolutely.  My intention is not to replace the ADDE access to the data,
but, rather, to make it available in another way.

>In any case, let me know what 
>you hope to see on IDD, then we can pick and choose the best systems to 
>have on the IDD - whether is be an AMRC system here at Wisconsin, or the 
>Unidata system here at Wisconsin.

Again, I think that this will be a learn as we go process.  If nobody
wants the data on the IDD, then the initiative will be dropped.  If
there is enthusiastic support for its addition, then we should pursue
this vigorously.  One of the reasons I am keen on this project is that
I am eager to see if the LDM-6 is a useful tool to move data "to the
ends of the earth".  The way I see it, Antarctica is one end to test,
and the other is the North Pole.  Since there is no readily available
scientific installation at the North Pole, I will have to settle for
the South :-)

>Thank you so much!

Thanks back at you!!

Cheers,

Tom
--
NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the
Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publically available
through the web.  If you do not want to have your interactions made
available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.