Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [ARRL-LOTW] ARRL posts the problem...

Expand Messages
  • Robert Chudek - K0RC
    I m 6 hours behind in my email queue, but here goes anyway... I concur with Mike s statements. He also said: I wonder what other such assumptions lurk in the
    Message 1 of 69 , Nov 28, 2012
      I'm 6 hours behind in my email queue, but here goes anyway... I concur with Mike's statements. He also said: "I wonder what other such assumptions lurk in the LoTW implementation."

      Wasn't it Bill Gates who voiced this statement in 1981, "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

      Or how about this one by Ken Olson, president of DEC in 1977, "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

      My point is, technology moves forward creating opportunities for improvement. This is clear and comical, as these statements appear to us today, when looking back in time. A computer / software system design that is 10 years old certainly qualifies for a serious review. I hope the ARRL takes this approach, and not just apply a simple "tire patch" to get past this immediate problem.

      For those interested, there is a web site that holds other infamous statements that later turn out to be ridiculously false: Such as:

      "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad." President of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford ’s lawyer not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., in 1903. He fellow was half right on this one, the horse is here to stay!

      http://www.quotesstar.com/quotes/t/the-horse-is-here-to-106456.html

      73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


      On 11/28/2012 2:19 PM, Mike Flowers wrote:
       

      It’s nice to hear something directly from the ARRL on this.

       

      Assuming a finite number of queue elements in the technical design is clearly a barrier to scalability.   

       

      I wonder what other such assumptions lurk in the LoTW implementation.

       

       

      From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cole
      Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:29 AM
      To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] ARRL posts the problem...

       

       

      http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-s-logbook-of-the-world-bug-fix-is-on-the-way

      --
      73's and Thanks,
      Dave
      http://www.nk7z.net for equipment reviews, propagation, and more...


    • Dave AA6YQ
      ... From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Zev Darack Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:43 PM To:
      Message 69 of 69 , Dec 3, 2012
        ### AA6YQ comments below

        -----Original Message-----
        From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
        Of Zev Darack
        Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:43 PM
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: retaining dated copies of DXKeeper's LotW
        upload files



        D4C needs to upload a 22k qso log from CQWW. Can't really limit the upload
        size.


        One idea would be to have an error and stop processing if the log contains
        excessive duplicates (say 100)

        ### If TQSL were extended to "remember" each QSO a user uploads with a
        particular certificate, TQSL could prevent duplicate QSOs from ever being
        uploaded to LotW, eliminating the problem. Note that this "remember"
        capability would not require storing an entire ADIF QSO record. A signature
        derived from QSO's callsign, date, and time would be sufficient.

        ### To do this, TQSL would need the ability to populate its memory of
        already-uploaded QSOs from LotW, as when a user installs TQSL in a new PC,
        or recovers from a disk crash, etc.

        73,

        Dave, AA6YQ




        On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Mark Robinson <markrob@...>
        wrote:


        >>>>>+++ Unnecessarily re-uploading 4-days worth of QSOs is not going to
        trouble LotW. What hurts is when ops upload their entire log each time they
        have new QSOs to upload.


        Maybe LOTW should have an upload file size to discourage people who upload
        their whole logs each time


        Mark N1UK
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dave AA6YQ
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, 03 December, 2012 5:15 PM
        Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: retaining dated copies of DXKeeper's LotW
        upload files


        +++ AA6YQ comments below

        -----Original Message-----
        From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
        Of Rick Scott
        Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:52 PM
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: retaining dated copies of DXKeeper's LotW
        upload files



        Thanks Dave,
        Will start renaming after upload. And I only load at end of operating day.

        +++ If you only upload once per day, there is no need to rename the .tq8
        file. Each QSO's "LotW QSL Sent Date" item shows you the date it was
        uploaded to LotW, which you can correlate with your file upload status on
        the LotW web page should you wish to do so.

        Uploaded a file last night that contained all the U files not changed to Y
        after doing a sync to LOTW then I deleted QSOs of the last 4 days so I didnt
        double up.. It looks like about Nov 8th through the 25th I lost 4 - 5 days
        of uploads looking at the dates of the QSO's the U logs had.

        +++ Unnecessarily re-uploading 4-days worth of QSOs is not going to trouble
        LotW. What hurts is when ops upload their entire log each time they have new
        QSOs to upload.

        73,

        Dave, AA6YQ


        --- On Mon, 12/3/12, Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:


        From: Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...>
        Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: retaining dated copies of DXKeeper's LotW
        upload files
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: dxlab@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, December 3, 2012, 10:25 AM



        >>>AA6YQ comments below

        -----Original Message-----
        From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
        Of w7psk
        Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:12 AM
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: Looks like 3 days now...


        Do you use DXKeeper? If so, how does one change the filename before
        uploading. I have not seen that option. Would like to do that.

        >>>DXKeeper automates the process of generating and uploading the signed and
        encrypted file containing your QSOs. This file is named
        LotWUpload.tq8
        >>>and lives in your DXKeeper folder. If after clicking DXKeeper's "Upload
        to LotW" button you wish to retain a "dated" copy of this file, then rename
        LotWUpload.tq8
        >>>to include a "datestamp" in the filename, e.g.
        LotWUpload 2012-12-03.tq8

        >>> When it uploads a QSO to LotW, DXKeeper records the current date in the
        QSO's "LotW QSL Sent Date" item. Unless you're uploading more than one batch
        of QSOs daily -- which I would discourage until LotW regains its health --
        you can correlate LotW's batch upload history with each uploaded QSO in your
        log without the manual renaming operation above.
        >>>On the Main window's "Log QSOs" panel, click the Filter panel's LotW
        button to see all QSOs that have been uploaded to LotW, but not yet accepted
        by LotW.
        73,
        Dave, AA6YQ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.