Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: LOTW  (Read 50162 times)
WA8UEG
Member

Posts: 339




Ignore
« Reply #270 on: December 11, 2012, 10:15:54 AM »

Everyone at ARRL associated with LOTW is well aware and working on a fix to make the system faster. There is a news column on the LOTW sight that is updated and lets everyone know what to expect. Here is the one from today.

LOTW status in www.arrl.org/logbook-of-the-world will be updated daily to convey information of interest to the user community, including planned downtime and changes that will impact operations. In addition, the state of LotW's processing queue is now updated hourly in www.arrl.org/logbook-queue-status.

Updated hardware to improve LoTW's throughput is on order and expected in six to eight weeks. We appreciate the user community's patience while we while work to bring LoTW's performance to an acceptable level.   
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 937




Ignore
« Reply #271 on: December 11, 2012, 10:22:49 AM »

Everyone at ARRL associated with LOTW is well aware and working on a fix to make the system faster. There is a news column on the LOTW sight that is updated and lets everyone know what to expect. Here is the one from today.

LOTW status in www.arrl.org/logbook-of-the-world will be updated daily to convey information of interest to the user community, including planned downtime and changes that will impact operations. In addition, the state of LotW's processing queue is now updated hourly in www.arrl.org/logbook-queue-status.

Updated hardware to improve LoTW's throughput is on order and expected in six to eight weeks. We appreciate the user community's patience while we while work to bring LoTW's performance to an acceptable level.   


Hopefully this means the software has been fully vetted and found 'up-to-speed' (or will be brought 'up-to-speed' in the interim)...
Logged
WA0CRI
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #272 on: December 11, 2012, 10:23:59 AM »

Quote from:  link=topic=86250.msg639403#msg639403 date=1355240703

According to the queue, the system is processing logs submitted 12/2/2012.  What happened to my daily logs submitted prior to 12/2/2012?  This is why I wish they would be more forthcoming about what's going on.  It is obvious that not only have logs been lost but some accounts, such as mine, are in effect "locked out".

Help,  Doug  WA0CRI

I'd recommend that you log in and select the tab Your Account and then select Your Activity.

Look to see when the last log you submitted is indicated as File Processed.

If you see that a log was processed and you have no increase in your QSO records then there is some other problem.

If you see that a log was processed and you have an increase in your QSO record count but no matches.  Then you might have a logging problem like your time is off due to the time change or maybe some other error on your part.  Could be wrong band or wrong mode or wrong date or ??  Or maybe you just talked to ops who don't use LoTW.

Just to clarify - I've submitted 13 logs since 11/24/2012 and the QSO count has remained unchanged.  Moreover, I have received QSL matches in the meantime, but none for QSO's after 11/24/2012.  When I look at the details of my LOTW activity it shows the message "processing aborted" on log submissions after 11/24/2012.

For those who say I may be impatient or expecting too much of the system - I've done exactly what was requested.  I waited until after Dec. 3 and resubmitted logs as directed by the LOTW notifications.  I just think there is something broken in the system.
Logged
WA8UEG
Member

Posts: 339




Ignore
« Reply #273 on: December 11, 2012, 10:31:50 AM »

Have you  called them? I have had nothing but great response when contacting them directly with question, concern or problem.
Logged
WB3BEL
Member

Posts: 78




Ignore
« Reply #274 on: December 11, 2012, 10:40:48 AM »

Just to clarify - I've submitted 13 logs since 11/24/2012 and the QSO count has remained unchanged.  Moreover, I have received QSL matches in the meantime, but none for QSO's after 11/24/2012.  When I look at the details of my LOTW activity it shows the message "processing aborted" on log submissions after 11/24/2012.

For those who say I may be impatient or expecting too much of the system - I've done exactly what was requested.  I waited until after Dec. 3 and resubmitted logs as directed by the LOTW notifications.  I just think there is something broken in the system.

Do you get the Processing Aborted - Invalid Certificate message?

If so see the hints under this section on:
 arrl.org/lotw-help.

I agree that you can get it sorted out if you call them.  If you don't want to talk to them you can open a help ticket by going to:
 arrl.org/lotw-help-ticket
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 937




Ignore
« Reply #275 on: December 11, 2012, 11:22:14 AM »

No sooner than I said all that, one of my SWAINS ISLAND confirmations showed up. Smiley

I have had two NH8S confirmations today: 12 meters at 15:46:49z and 40 meters at 18:21:47z (which gives me 99 confirmations for 40 meters)

almost 3 hours between the 12m and 40m confirmations.  I wonder how big the NH8S upload is?
answer to own question: Total QSOs:  105,455  http://www.nh8s.org/

Logged
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 738




Ignore
« Reply #276 on: December 11, 2012, 12:12:48 PM »

NH8S obviously had more than one user file uploaded to LoTW. In between my first and second QSL there were a lot of other files processed.
Logged
WA0CRI
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #277 on: December 11, 2012, 01:14:26 PM »

Have you  called them? I have had nothing but great response when contacting them directly with question, concern or problem.
I did contact them and they got back to me within a couple hours with an e-mail reply referring me to their official notice about re-submitting any lost logs after 11/25/2012 and that logs will be processed in the order in which they arrive.
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3697




Ignore
« Reply #278 on: December 11, 2012, 02:07:06 PM »

Just checked LOTW and all five of my Swains QSLs are there as well as all six D3AA QSLs. Cheesy

73, Gene AF3Y
Logged
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 738




Ignore
« Reply #279 on: December 11, 2012, 08:30:35 PM »

I remember when programmers such as myself could sit at a bar with hardware engineers and jokingly point beer bottles at each other while discussing performance issues at a particular site.

I was usually of the opinion that it was a hardware problem.

I was usually wrong.

[rant=on]
I now see that in the past 2 hours, an additional 104 log files has entered the system. Yet, in that 2 hours the backlog has increased by 1 hour and 39 minutes.

I assume that the updated hardware (due to arrive in 6-8 weeks?) includes more than solid-state drives. A small mom and pop shop could get that in an hour. What mainframe are they using, anyway?

I have never been a DBA, but it seems to me that some threshold has been exceeded and needs to be analyzed. Updated hardware is not a long term fix.

I hope I am wrong. See above.

[/rant]
Logged
SV1XV
Member

Posts: 93


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #280 on: December 11, 2012, 11:38:24 PM »

What mainframe are they using, anyway
CDC-7600, I believe...
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 937




Ignore
« Reply #281 on: December 12, 2012, 02:00:55 AM »

What mainframe are they using, anyway
CDC-7600, I believe...

do you mean this? http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesz4a6/current/id74.html
Logged
AB8MA
Member

Posts: 738




Ignore
« Reply #282 on: December 12, 2012, 07:27:40 AM »

What mainframe are they using, anyway
CDC-7600, I believe...

I cut my teeth on that system while at Control Data Corporation. In 1984 I left CDC and worked for Cray Research on site at Ford until 1995. Smiley
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3133


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #283 on: December 12, 2012, 07:38:02 AM »

I have never been a DBA, but it seems to me that some threshold has been exceeded and needs to be analyzed. Updated hardware is not a long term fix.

I sure hope they aren't using MySQL with the MyISAM engine - and table level locking . . . . . and single threaded ETL. Hardware won't fix that. I just fixed a big Data Warehouse that had this problem at Lithium Technologies . . . . OUCHIES . . .
Logged
K4JK
Member

Posts: 292




Ignore
« Reply #284 on: December 12, 2012, 07:49:57 AM »


I sure hope they aren't using MySQL with the MyISAM engine - and table level locking . . . . . and single threaded ETL. Hardware won't fix that. I just fixed a big Data Warehouse that had this problem at Lithium Technologies . . . . OUCHIES . . .
If they are using MyISAM, the good news is that when they get the new server they can compile InnoDB or HEAP (probably InnoDB) into the mySQL instance there, and then convert the table type when they copy the data over... That should be pretty seamless. If the ETL is a bottleneck too then that will have to be redesigned I guess...
Logged

ex W4HFK
Pages: Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!