Re: [ldm-users] 20090704: Level 2 radar issues from NWS CRH

Stonie R. Cooper wrote:
Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
True, but they would recycle/circulate latent to other machines, and
that's just bad all around because it causes more bandwidth to be
consumed, regardless of whether or not the products are rejected.

Your assumption is that only people on the IDD use LDM; I would
challenge that perception, and argue that LDM is utilized outside of IDD
probably more than in it.

I would argue that putting any additional sanity checks in the LDM code
will have undesired results outside of the IDD paradigm.

And I'll argue that anywhere that uses LDM constitutes an IDD. If I wanted to get pedantic, LDM is a publish-subscribe system. Pub/sub is the basis for all sorts of time-sensitive transaction processing, like the financial markets. I'm not suggesting LDM is used there, but the pub/sub concept certainly is, and the last time I had a grad student evaluate LDM for potential enhancement, that's the gold standard he and LDM were held to in his committee.

I think I could support a sanity check for a decent NTP server, and argue infavor of a server check. If not NIST, then to something that's no worse than a Stratum 2 time server. I'd make it a big, ugly warning (and not fail out), and see if we couldn't build some improved performance.

Time stamping on Level II data's been a problem since the first days it was introduced in this current networking format. I hoped it'd get better and have lobbied for the few additional checks it'd take, but it's not gotten better.

Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager@xxxxxxxx
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University        
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843

  • 2009 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the ldm-users archives: