Re: [conduit] [CONDUIT #DYD-390666]: 20081022: follow-up to Unidata User's Committee CONDU IT survey

CONDUIT users,

First off, let me say that the CONDUIT feed has been very valuable to
us and we really appreciate it!

We don't use the 40-km NAM 212 grid since it chops off too close to
our western boundary.  We use the high-resolution GFS grids (.5 and
1.0 degree) and for the NAM, the 40-km 221 grids (awip3200, 25
MB/file) which we have to FTP from NCEP already.  I don't foresee
using the RTMA in the near future, but someone in our department may
wish to, especially if it is a replacement for the RUC.  Ditto for the
David Ovens              e-mail: ovens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Research Meteorologist    phone: (206) 685-8108
Dept of Atm. Sciences      plan: Real-time MM5 forecasting for the
Box 351640                        Pacific Northwest
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98195               Weather Graphics and Loops

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 09:34:39PM -0600, Jim Bresch wrote:
I use the 40 km as well. I thought the point of CONDUIT was to deliver NCEP NWP products to the users as quickly as possible. I am willing to trade lower resolution (40 vs 12 km) in order to acquire and process the output faster. I don't know the time difference between NOAAPORT and CONDUIT, but the time lag between CONDUIT and ftp is significant.

I also don't see the point in replacing a 5 Mb per output-time grid (212) with a 30 Mb per output-time grid (218). Why not keep both? Does the higher resolution justify the 6x increase in bandwidth and users having to redo all their scripts? Not in my view.

In order to determine what should be on CONDUIT, you need to know the maximum CONDUIT bandwidth, what output files people are currently using, and what files are being downloaded from the NCEP ftp site.

I have no need for SREF and what little I've seen of RTMA has been garbage. I'd much rather have the native-grid .325 GFS with full vertical resolution.