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

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

>From: Matthew Lazzara <address@hidden>
>Organization: SSEC 
>Keywords: 200401191551.i0EFp3p2015066 IDD AMRC McMurdo
>Keywords: 200401192118.i0JLIQp2017239

Hi Matthew,

re: test use of LDM-6 at McMurdo

>Yes, this sounds like a good idea.  Just a matter of timing when we'd 
>like to do this, and get the a.o.k. from NSF to do it.  Comms are tight 
>these days.  Due to a variety of reasons, NSF is asking Grantees for TCP 
>port numbers, and byte counts (specifically).  But, I don't see why we 
>can't do this.

The port number for LDM use is easy: 388/tcp.  The byte count is harder
since the more useful the LDM is found to be, the higher the byte
count will grow.

>There are a couple of ways to proceedure from here. 
>Here's my suggestion:
>
>1. AMRC needs to turn in a detailed SIP (Suport Information Package) to 
>   NSF/Raytheon Polar Services by Tax Day for next year's support.

Do I need to provide input on this?

>2. I suggest that AMRC put into that SIP the requirements we'll need to 
>   get this test of LDM-6 into place. This includes getting the TCP port 
>   opened up and to the specific IPs at Wisconsin to be allowed to talk to 
>   the ice.

The port is 388/tcp.  The machine(s) at UW that would get the data are
mostly up to you, but I would strongly suggest using unidata2.ssec.wisc.edu
since it is _the_ IDD injection node for UNIWISC data and is one of 4
injection nodes for global observational data, NCEP model output, and
NEXRAD Level III products (through the SDI that is feeding unidata2).
The IP information is:

unidata2.ssec.wisc.edu - 128.104.110.130

>3. If RPSC/NSF gives AMRC a hard time on this, then Art can appeal via 
>   his means.

Sounds good to me.  Art?

>Overall, I'd love to be the focal for this.

Super!

>As a note, I've *finally* set up the getting the SPAWAR AWS data 
>routinely to Wisconsin. I'm getting into an MD file (using our AWS MD 
>Schema).    The move to netCDF hasn't progressed (something we ought to 
>talk more about in the future), but is still my goal.

Progress is always good news...

>If the LDM test works well next year, and we can prove it saves on 
>bandwidth, with better service, AMRC would be interested in moving to it 
>as a primary means of doing some comms...

I would say that the LDM might increase reliability, but it won't
necessarily reduce bandwidth use.

>but we'd still use ADDE here 
>and there for sure (specifically for manual monitoring and composite 
>building that is done time scheduled).

I agree.

>Oh, Tom - I've never had LDM training.  I'm not sure when I could fit in 
>learning in the next few months either...I'm swamped (I'm starting to 
>get a busy as you!!! :-)  Is this something I could learn over the summer?

Yes, this is something you could _easily_ learn over the summer.

>Oh, and I do have plans to go to the ice next year....dates to be 
>determined, but I think fall is looking likely.

Sounds good!

>Thanks much Tom!

No worries.

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.