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 Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated.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.
Mike, > >I infer the following from the MRTG and the rtstats(1) plots for > >SonomaTech: 1) the SonomaTech LDM restarted around noon WDT on the 18th; > >2) it saturated the pipe; 3) it didn't catch up until just before 1700 > >WDT; 4) throughout the subsequent night, the pipe was occationally > >saturated; and 5) the pipe became saturated again around the start of the > >workday at SonomaTech. > > The pipe becomes saturated during daylight hours because the NIMAGE feed > volume has a diurnal cycle....... it's based largely on visible satellite > imagery and so it increases during the day. > > >Judging from this and the good performance of the LDM in sending the same > >data-products from Rossby to here, I think it's safe to say that > >SonomaTech's pipe just isn't big enough to receive the data-products that > >it's requesting. > > Yes, this was never in doubt. But they should be able to get half their > pipe in volume without much latency, and that is the main thing I've been > trying to figure. I added back in the NIMAGE feed yesterday to prove a > point. Without the NIMAGE feed, we were having large latencies ( for > unknown reasons, I would argue). After the NIMAGE feed was added, and the > feeds were combined, we got much better performance. > > >Merging all the requests into one was done to validate the hypothesis that > >a SonomaTech router was favoring higher-volume LDM connections at the > >expense of lower-volume ones. That appears to be the case. > > Hmm...could it be a router CPU problem? But if we lower volume a bunch > (without NIMAGE), you would think it could handle it, even if the feeds > were split. OK, I'll give you a chance to make a prediction...maybe you can > get Tom in on it and we can have an office pool. > > GIVEN: the current good performance of the LDM at STI (aside from the > expected latencies due to their small pipe), and considering their current > feed volume, and the fact that their feed types are combined in one entry... > > PREDICT: what will happen if we request the feeds separately, AND we do not > request the NIMAGE feed (a reduction in volume by more than half). Now > myself, and I'm guessing most others that have played around with the LDM, > would never predict that large latencies would develop and certain feeds > might just stop coming in. Any takers? This is the fundamental thing that I > have been unable to understand. Unfortunately, you're proposing to change two parameters simultaneously (volume and number of connections). I think I can predict the outcome when only one is changed. If only the volume is decreased, then I expect the average latency to decrease. If only the number of connections is increased, then I expect the average latency to *increase* due to a hypothesized problem with Sonomatech's IP-mapping router managing its connection tables. Feel free to test this out -- but I'd only change one parameter at a time. > Again, I appreciate your indulgence, you can ignore me anytime your > patience has been exhausted. :-) Compared to my impatience with myself, you're a piece of cake. :-) Regards, Steve Emmerson Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: XXW-990118 Department: Support LDM Priority: Normal Status: Closed