Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LotW Backlog continues to grow ...
- I think it's brand new, Joe. It's now been advertised on dx-world.net
(website, and twitter @DX_World)
~iain / N6ML
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joe K2UF <joe@...> wrote:
> That is a great page. Why don't they advertise it. Now I know that they
> have not gotten to my 160 meter log yet. I submitted it on the 3rd.
> Joe K2UF
> With enough THRUST pig fly just fine.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:lists@...]
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 5:32 PM
> To: Joe K2UF
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LotW Backlog continues to grow ...
> You dont ... I've been calculating the number processed from the
> data on the home page and applying that to the backlog.
> However, there is a new status page that shows the backlog hourly
> - in time, number of QSOs and number of files. That should help.
> ... Joe, W4TV
> On 12/10/2012 4:51 PM, Joe K2UF wrote:
> > Joe,
> > Where do you find out how many Qs are being uploaded?
> > Joe K2UF
> > With enough THRUST pig fly just fine.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Of Joe Subich, W4TV
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 4:09 PM
> > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: Jim; firstname.lastname@example.org; DX4WIN Reflector
> > Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: LotW Backlog continues to grow ...
> > > Delay keeps growing. Up to 8 days just a few minutes ago.
> > Agreed - 8 days 14 hours! At the current rate of growth the
> > delay will be 9 days before tomorrow. Here are the latest
> > numbers I have:
> > Upload Time Time Processed Elapsed Time
> > =======================================================
> > 2012/11/23 18:00 2012/11/27 00:43 3 06:43:34
> > 2012/11/28 22:32 2012/12/05 02:08 6 03:35:10
> > 2012/11/29 18:38 2012/12/06 05:10 6 10:32:20
> > 2012/11/30 00:58 2012/12/06 18:24 6 17:26:26
> > 2012/11/30 17:04 2012/12/07 17:28 7 00:24:16
> > 2012/12/01 08:20 2012/12/08 19:09 7 10:49:15
> > 2012/12/01 12:30 2012/12/09 01:10 7 12:40:49
> > 2012/12/02 05:00 2012/12/10 19:31 8 14:31:29
> > The delay is growing out of control - between 12/1 and 112/2
> > there were 2.5 times as many QSOs uploaded as LotW processed
> > and LotW has been processing an *average* of 11,000 QSOs per
> > minute or about 264,000 QSOs per day based on the information
> > on the home page.
> > If one plots a trend line, the delay is growing exponentially.
> > The trend indicates a file uploaded *today* is not likely to
> > be processed *for more than five weeks* based on the current
> > rate of growth in the backlog. Based on the processing time
> > for files uploaded at 0500z on 12/2, there were about 2.25
> > million unprocessed QSOs in the queue at that time - and that
> > was 48 hours *after* the deadline for submitting CQWW CW logs.
> > With the trend in growth between 11/25 and 12/2, the queue could
> > hold as many *10 million* unprocessed QSOs (although that is
> > unlikely)!
> > I know the folks in Newington are saying "trust us," but their
> > performance - and complete failure to provide *current data* -
> > particularly the failure to provide accurate current status on
> > the size of the processing queue - makes trust very difficult.
> > 73,
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> > On 12/10/2012 12:14 PM, Jim wrote:
> >> Agree with others. ARRL need to fix this thing and fix it quick!!!!
> > Unbelievable processing times. Delay keeps growing. Up to 8 days just a
> > few minutes ago. Love the program/system but unless they can come up
> > with a way to handle the load, then it will die on the vine.......
> > ------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5355 - Release Date:
> > 10/26/12
> > Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5355 - Release Date: 10/26/12
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
- On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@...> wrote:
It is certainly a sign of competence and design skills when you realize the LoTW system was deployed on SAN technology 10+ years ago. That was leading edge architecture at the time, and unlikely to be found outside of corporate server farms or large data centers.
For anyone interested in considerations the regarding the marriage of SANs and Database architecture, here's an article describing the issues facing system designers. It's a pretty decent primer on some basic database design too.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
Thanks for the link, Bob. Enterprise decisions concerning SSDs are the same as I went through when deciding to use them. 8*)Speaking of enterprise...do you know of any studies comparing MTBF for consumer vs enterprise SSDs?
Ken - K4XL
BoatAnchor Manual Archive
BAMA - http://bama.edebris.com