[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20050903: a third look at sasquatch (cont.)

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: 20050903: a third look at sasquatch (cont.)
  • Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:15:50 -0600
>From: Unidata Support <address@hidden>
>Organization: UCAR/Unidata
>Keywords: 200509021505.j82F56jo020896 IDD SCOOP

Hi Gerry,

LDM-6.3.0 has been running on sasquatch overnight, and the latency
situation at UAH and UFL have not improved.  Since I can see nothing
wrong with the setup on sasquatch, I am left with the idea that there
is some problem moving data from Texas to Alabama and Florida.  To
test this hypothesis, I started ingesting EXP data from sasquatch on
a machine here at the UPC, zasu.unidata.ucar.edu.  As I write this
note we are apparently in a data lull, so we will have to wait a bit
to see how the ingest goes here.  If it is good here and still bad
at UAH/UFL, then we should do traceroutes and perhaps 'pathchar's
from sasquatch to see the slowdown is (pathchar was written by the
same guy who did traceroute; it is routine that can be used to estimate
the size of the pipe at every hop in a connection.  NB, it takes a LONG
time to run, like 16 hours).

Cheers,

Tom
--
NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the
Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly 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.