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

RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?

Expand Messages
  • Rich Hallman - N7TR
    Im new to the skimmer group, but at least having the option to use a master.dta or some other verification file would be nice. Not all would be forced to
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Im new to the skimmer group, but at least having the option to use a
      master.dta or some other verification file would be nice. Not all
      would be forced to using it, but for those like me, could turn that
      option on when needed (Manage Error Rates). I know part of this
      functionality is in CW Skimmer.....so would be nice to have the same
      option in server.



      I have just the N7TR skimmer spots showing up on my ARC4 cluster and do
      not propagate any further then to my node. Also feed the RBN Network.
      Users so far seem to like this approach....



      Telnet to dxc.n7tr.com Port 23



      Thanks....

      Rich







      From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
      Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
      To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Alex, VE3NEA
      Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?





      Ah, I'm glad to see this topic surfacing. Working with multiple
      Skimmers feeding the RBN, we've encountered a rather different problem.

      Here's a summary from the N1MM developers group, in response to a
      complaint from N2IC about the plethora of bad spots he encountered over
      the weekend in the CQ 160 CW test:

      "[4:07:09 PM | Edited 4:07:49 PM] Pete Smith: I think I see the problem
      now, and as Steve says, it depends on your definition of error rate. If
      I watch the output of one skimmer, I see lots of spots and a very low
      error rate. But if you watch the whole RBN or even a sub-set (like the
      half-dozen Skimmers in PA, MD, VA, and WV) then the effective error rate

      is much higher, because the errors make it through while the good spots
      either come up gray (if already worked) or are duped out before they
      ever make it to the bandmap. This makes it a particularly bad problem
      late in a contest, when most of the legitimate stations have been worked

      but the op must still look at every spot to make sure it is a miscopy.

      [6:17:55 AM] Pete Smith: I will bring this to the people involved who
      actually know something (Felipe, Nick and Dave) and see if we can come
      up with a filter for the RBN that attempts to identify these situations
      and filter out the junk. It'll take some doing, but should be do-able.
      One simple-minded way would be to look at spots coming through within a
      short time window on the same frequency, and if there are spots that
      differ from the callsign that the majority are spotting correctly on
      that frequency, don't send them out."

      Kind of a voting system, I guess. Anyhow, the RBN solution aside. might
      it be possible to do the same thing in Skimmer so that folks like Lee
      who prefer to collect their Skimmer spots themselves. Or do you have a
      better idea, Alex?

      73, Pete N4ZR

      The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
      www.conteststations.com
      The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
      reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
      spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000

      On 2/1/2011 9:43 AM, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:
      > Hi Lee,
      >
      > I thought about this but could not find an acceptable solution. If
      > Validation is set to Normal, almost every call is posted on the
      network when
      > it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
      when
      > more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
      but
      > since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
      > received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
      times,
      > and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
      with a
      > few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
      >
      > If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
      the
      > spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
      only
      > the callsigns reported by two or more Skimmers.
      >
      > 73 Alex VE3NEA
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >
      > Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots
      comment's
      > field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
      used?
      > It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
      say
      > "3" and normal "1".
      >
      > Lee VE7CC
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Alex, VE3NEA
      Hi Rich, Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code is optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had to
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rich,

        Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code is
        optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had to
        rewrite a number of procedures in Assembler, using the SSE instructions, in
        order to save some precious CPU cycles. It would be a shame to waste those
        hard-earned cycles on searching the master.dta file, something that is not
        part of skimming and that can be easily done elsewhere, e.g., at the cluster
        node or even in the client software.

        73 Alex VE3NEA





        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@...>
        To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@...>
        Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:49 PM
        Subject: RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?


        > Im new to the skimmer group, but at least having the option to use a
        > master.dta or some other verification file would be nice. Not all
        > would be forced to using it, but for those like me, could turn that
        > option on when needed (Manage Error Rates). I know part of this
        > functionality is in CW Skimmer.....so would be nice to have the same
        > option in server.
        >
        >
        >
        > I have just the N7TR skimmer spots showing up on my ARC4 cluster and do
        > not propagate any further then to my node. Also feed the RBN Network.
        > Users so far seem to like this approach....
        >
        >
        >
        > Telnet to dxc.n7tr.com Port 23
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks....
        >
        > Rich
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
        > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
        > To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
        > Cc: Alex, VE3NEA
        > Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Ah, I'm glad to see this topic surfacing. Working with multiple
        > Skimmers feeding the RBN, we've encountered a rather different problem.
        >
        > Here's a summary from the N1MM developers group, in response to a
        > complaint from N2IC about the plethora of bad spots he encountered over
        > the weekend in the CQ 160 CW test:
        >
        > "[4:07:09 PM | Edited 4:07:49 PM] Pete Smith: I think I see the problem
        > now, and as Steve says, it depends on your definition of error rate. If
        > I watch the output of one skimmer, I see lots of spots and a very low
        > error rate. But if you watch the whole RBN or even a sub-set (like the
        > half-dozen Skimmers in PA, MD, VA, and WV) then the effective error rate
        >
        > is much higher, because the errors make it through while the good spots
        > either come up gray (if already worked) or are duped out before they
        > ever make it to the bandmap. This makes it a particularly bad problem
        > late in a contest, when most of the legitimate stations have been worked
        >
        > but the op must still look at every spot to make sure it is a miscopy.
        >
        > [6:17:55 AM] Pete Smith: I will bring this to the people involved who
        > actually know something (Felipe, Nick and Dave) and see if we can come
        > up with a filter for the RBN that attempts to identify these situations
        > and filter out the junk. It'll take some doing, but should be do-able.
        > One simple-minded way would be to look at spots coming through within a
        > short time window on the same frequency, and if there are spots that
        > differ from the callsign that the majority are spotting correctly on
        > that frequency, don't send them out."
        >
        > Kind of a voting system, I guess. Anyhow, the RBN solution aside. might
        > it be possible to do the same thing in Skimmer so that folks like Lee
        > who prefer to collect their Skimmer spots themselves. Or do you have a
        > better idea, Alex?
        >
        > 73, Pete N4ZR
        >
        > The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
        > www.conteststations.com
        > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
        > reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
        > spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
        >
        > On 2/1/2011 9:43 AM, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:
        >> Hi Lee,
        >>
        >> I thought about this but could not find an acceptable solution. If
        >> Validation is set to Normal, almost every call is posted on the
        > network when
        >> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
        > when
        >> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
        > but
        >> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
        >> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
        > times,
        >> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
        > with a
        >> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
        >>
        >> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation of
        > the
        >> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
        > only
        >> the callsigns reported by two or more Skimmers.
        >>
        >> 73 Alex VE3NEA
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ----- Original Message -----
        >>
        >> Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots
        > comment's
        >> field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
        > used?
        >> It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
        > say
        >> "3" and normal "1".
        >>
        >> Lee VE7CC
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
      • Rich Hallman - N7TR
        Thanks for the update Alex and makes sense..... Rich From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex, VE3NEA Sent:
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the update Alex and makes sense.....



          Rich



          From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex, VE3NEA
          Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:13 AM
          To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?





          Hi Rich,

          Skimmer Server is designed to skim 7 bands simultaneously, and its code
          is
          optimized for decoding as many concurrent CW signals as possible. I had
          to
          rewrite a number of procedures in Assembler, using the SSE instructions,
          in
          order to save some precious CPU cycles. It would be a shame to waste
          those
          hard-earned cycles on searching the master.dta file, something that is
          not
          part of skimming and that can be easily done elsewhere, e.g., at the
          cluster
          node or even in the client software.

          73 Alex VE3NEA

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Rich Hallman - N7TR" <rich@... <mailto:rich%40n7tr.com> >
          To: <dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com> >
          Cc: "Alex, VE3NEA" <alshovk@... <mailto:alshovk%40dxatlas.com> >
          Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:49 PM
          Subject: RE: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?

          > Im new to the skimmer group, but at least having the option to use a
          > master.dta or some other verification file would be nice. Not all
          > would be forced to using it, but for those like me, could turn that
          > option on when needed (Manage Error Rates). I know part of this
          > functionality is in CW Skimmer.....so would be nice to have the same
          > option in server.
          >
          >
          >
          > I have just the N7TR skimmer spots showing up on my ARC4 cluster and
          do
          > not propagate any further then to my node. Also feed the RBN Network.
          > Users so far seem to like this approach....
          >
          >
          >
          > Telnet to dxc.n7tr.com Port 23
          >
          >
          >
          > Thanks....
          >
          > Rich
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > From: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com>
          > [mailto:dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
          > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:44 AM
          > To: dxatlas_group@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:dxatlas_group%40yahoogroups.com>
          > Cc: Alex, VE3NEA
          > Subject: Re: [dxatlas] Skim Server and Master.dta?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Ah, I'm glad to see this topic surfacing. Working with multiple
          > Skimmers feeding the RBN, we've encountered a rather different
          problem.
          >
          > Here's a summary from the N1MM developers group, in response to a
          > complaint from N2IC about the plethora of bad spots he encountered
          over
          > the weekend in the CQ 160 CW test:
          >
          > "[4:07:09 PM | Edited 4:07:49 PM] Pete Smith: I think I see the
          problem
          > now, and as Steve says, it depends on your definition of error rate.
          If
          > I watch the output of one skimmer, I see lots of spots and a very low
          > error rate. But if you watch the whole RBN or even a sub-set (like the
          > half-dozen Skimmers in PA, MD, VA, and WV) then the effective error
          rate
          >
          > is much higher, because the errors make it through while the good
          spots
          > either come up gray (if already worked) or are duped out before they
          > ever make it to the bandmap. This makes it a particularly bad problem
          > late in a contest, when most of the legitimate stations have been
          worked
          >
          > but the op must still look at every spot to make sure it is a miscopy.
          >
          > [6:17:55 AM] Pete Smith: I will bring this to the people involved who
          > actually know something (Felipe, Nick and Dave) and see if we can come
          > up with a filter for the RBN that attempts to identify these
          situations
          > and filter out the junk. It'll take some doing, but should be do-able.
          > One simple-minded way would be to look at spots coming through within
          a
          > short time window on the same frequency, and if there are spots that
          > differ from the callsign that the majority are spotting correctly on
          > that frequency, don't send them out."
          >
          > Kind of a voting system, I guess. Anyhow, the RBN solution aside.
          might
          > it be possible to do the same thing in Skimmer so that folks like Lee
          > who prefer to collect their Skimmer spots themselves. Or do you have a
          > better idea, Alex?
          >
          > 73, Pete N4ZR
          >
          > The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
          > www.conteststations.com
          > The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
          > reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
          > spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
          >
          > On 2/1/2011 9:43 AM, Alex, VE3NEA wrote:
          >> Hi Lee,
          >>
          >> I thought about this but could not find an acceptable solution. If
          >> Validation is set to Normal, almost every call is posted on the
          > network when
          >> it first meets the Normal validation criteria. A few seconds later,
          > when
          >> more data are received, the call may meet a higher validation level,
          > but
          >> since it has already been posted, is will not be posted again. I have
          >> received tons of complaints about the same callsign posted multiple
          > times,
          >> and had to enforce the 10-minute rule. The net result is, all spots,
          > with a
          >> few exceptions, will have the Normal validation level.
          >>
          >> If your goal is to filter out possible errors after the aggregation
          of
          > the
          >> spots from multiple Skimmers, then one simple solution is to publish
          > only
          >> the callsigns reported by two or more Skimmers.
          >>
          >> 73 Alex VE3NEA
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >>
          >> Alex would it be possible to include a number in the Skimmer spots
          > comment's
          >> field that lets users know what level of call verification is being
          > used?
          >> It could be just before the CQ. For instance aggressive mode could be
          > say
          >> "3" and normal "1".
          >>
          >> Lee VE7CC
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.