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 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Interesting LoTW Data  (Read 10909 times)
WS4T
Member

Posts: 182




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: December 17, 2012, 03:14:59 AM »

Do you understand the level of staffing the ARRL has made available for LotW development and maintenance? A fraction of one person.

no, I had taken K1ZZ's mention of "the present IT staff" below to mean there was a team available to spend some of their time on that...


Not only is there no "team", there's less than one full-time person assigned to LotW development and maintenance. You jumped to a badly incorrect conclusion.


In this case, I have to agree with K9AIM. The term "present IT staff" is intentionally confusing CEO speak if there's only one person working on this part-time. "Staff" implies multiple workers in English.

Gary, ES1WST
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2393




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: December 17, 2012, 05:11:26 AM »

I see way too much fretting and speculation in these threads concerning ARRL and LoTW.  A more constructive approach might be to QRX for a while and see how things work out.  The system is not broken; it's just acting as a ten day delay line right now.

Those with specific questions and concerns could also contact their ARRL Director.  My Director couldn't have been more responsive to my concerns expressed several weeks ago.   

73,
Chuck  NI0C
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #32 on: December 17, 2012, 05:53:18 AM »

Do you understand the level of staffing the ARRL has made available for LotW development and maintenance? A fraction of one person.

no, I had taken K1ZZ's mention of "the present IT staff" below to mean there was a team available to spend some of their time on that...


Not only is there no "team", there's less than one full-time person assigned to LotW development and maintenance. You jumped to a badly incorrect conclusion.


In this case, I have to agree with K9AIM. The term "present IT staff" is intentionally confusing CEO speak if there's only one person working on this part-time. "Staff" implies multiple workers in English.


The ARRL does have a multi-person IT department, and that department is responsible for LotW development and maintenance -- so it is not inaccurate or confusing to refer to LotW as being the IT staff's responsibility. One must, however, ask the questions "how many members of the IT staff are competent to undertake LotW development and maintenance?" and "what fraction of those members' time is allocated to LotW work?". The answers are "one" and "less than 100%". The only person able to undertake LotW development and maintenance is in fact the IT department manager, who has responsibilities beyond LotW.

     
Logged
N7SMI
Member

Posts: 326




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: December 17, 2012, 08:08:34 AM »

As a bit of an update after a few more days of monitoring data:

- The system is no longer falling further behind, but it is also not making any progress on the queue. The queue has held stable at around 29000 files and 9 million QSOs with a 10 day delay in processing logs. Of note is that this last weekend, as well as the next two weekends, have no notable contests. The real test will be the January contests.

- Processing of new QSOs slowed down slightly (from 2.16/second to 2.04/second for the last 2+ days). This may not indicate a system slowdown, but instead that more duplicates are being processed and rejected.

- The average log file has contained 85 new QSOs. It's clear that files with duplicates slow down processing and waste resources - the system processes large files without duplicates at a rate 2-3 times faster.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 999




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: December 17, 2012, 08:55:46 AM »


The ARRL does have a multi-person IT department, and that department is responsible for LotW development and maintenance -- so it is not inaccurate or confusing to refer to LotW as being the IT staff's responsibility. One must, however, ask the questions "how many members of the IT staff are competent to undertake LotW development and maintenance?" and "what fraction of those members' time is allocated to LotW work?". The answers are "one" and "less than 100%". The only person able to undertake LotW development and maintenance is in fact the IT department manager, who has responsibilities beyond LotW.
     


nothing works as well as a little disclosure to quell false assumptions.  thanks.
anyone know what happened to the person who created LoTW and whether they are being consulted regarding the bottleneck(s)?
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 08:58:05 AM by K9AIM » Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: December 17, 2012, 09:06:42 AM »


The ARRL does have a multi-person IT department, and that department is responsible for LotW development and maintenance -- so it is not inaccurate or confusing to refer to LotW as being the IT staff's responsibility. One must, however, ask the questions "how many members of the IT staff are competent to undertake LotW development and maintenance?" and "what fraction of those members' time is allocated to LotW work?". The answers are "one" and "less than 100%". The only person able to undertake LotW development and maintenance is in fact the IT department manager, who has responsibilities beyond LotW.


nothing works as well as a little disclosure to quell false assumptions.


Not true. What works best, is to refrain from making false assumptions.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 999




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2012, 09:15:36 AM »


Not true. What works best, is to refrain from making false assumptions.


welcome to machine
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2012, 09:24:19 AM »


Not true. What works best, is to refrain from making false assumptions.


welcome to machine

No, welcome to critical thinking skills.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 999




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2012, 07:20:20 PM »

What critical thinking has taken place regarding the future plans for LoTW -- beyond simply resolving the present throughput issue -- to ensure LoTW capacity meets and surpasses demand thoughout the coming decade?   
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #39 on: December 17, 2012, 07:23:49 PM »

What critical thinking has taken place regarding the future plans for LoTW -- beyond simply resolving the present throughput issue -- to ensure LoTW capacity meets and surpasses demand thoughout the coming decade?   

Good question. Now pose it to someone who can provide an answer: your ARRL representative.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 999




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2012, 08:38:03 PM »

i think the present throughput issue and the amount of time it has taken to begin to address it speaks for itself regarding the answer to my question.  weeks ago, i contacted K1ZZ directly via email, but even absent that if they are not thinking about the future of LoTW by now it may be best if another organization steps in to offer a QSO confirmation and award service.  In this digital age it has truly become a small world and perhaps a more international organization is appropriate...
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1589


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #41 on: December 18, 2012, 07:51:45 AM »

i think the present throughput issue and the amount of time it has taken to begin to address it speaks for itself regarding the answer to my question.  weeks ago, i contacted K1ZZ directly via email, but even absent that if they are not thinking about the future of LoTW by now it may be best if another organization steps in to offer a QSO confirmation and award service.  In this digital age it has truly become a small world and perhaps a more international organization is appropriate...

What was K1ZZ's response to your question?

From what "other organization" would the ARRL accept proof of contact for DXCC award credit?

Logged
KD6KVL
Member

Posts: 76




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2012, 09:03:05 AM »

David, why are so adversarial to all these comments?  It almost seems aggressive and outside of the Ham spirit in some cases.  What gives?  I understand your helping to fix the issues, which I assume you didn't create, but hams everywhere rumble of this systems faults and you and the ARRL representitives I've spoken to get an attitude and stand on the "security and authenticity".
It's the leagues computer, award, and problem.  After seeing the attitudes of the representing the ARRL including you, have solidified my opinion.
I don't need paper from the league to feel good about myself.
The paper doesn't make the dx'er.  However the attitudes of the leagues representations has been awful in light of this lotw business.
Frank KG6N
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3725




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: December 18, 2012, 09:16:09 AM »

David, why are so adversarial to all these comments?  It almost seems aggressive and outside of the Ham spirit in some cases.  What gives?  I understand your helping to fix the issues, which I assume you didn't create, but hams everywhere rumble of this systems faults and you and the ARRL representitives I've spoken to get an attitude and stand on the "security and authenticity".
It's the leagues computer, award, and problem.  After seeing the attitudes of the representing the ARRL including you, have solidified my opinion.
I don't need paper from the league to feel good about myself.
The paper doesn't make the dx'er.  However the attitudes of the leagues representations has been awful in light of this lotw business.
Frank KG6N

One very good point there. Wink

73, Gene AF3Y
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 999




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: December 18, 2012, 10:24:50 AM »


What was K1ZZ's response to your question?

From what "other organization" would the ARRL accept proof of contact for DXCC award credit?


I reviewed my email to him in which I expressed concern that the LoTW software be tuned up in addition to doing a hardware upgrade, and his reply (which was very fast btw) suggested the current problem *is* a hardware problem period.  I would hope the ARRL leadership already thinks proactively about maintaining the amateur services they provide now and will provide in the future, and I and had not specifically asked him about future plans for LoTW.  However, I did just contact him regarding that issue since maybe the ARRL team has not asked themselves such important questions(s)   Huh

As for your question about "from what 'other organization' would the ARRL accept proof of DXCC award credit" -- I think you misread the post. My suggestion was another organization (one yet to be born perhaps) may arise which will offer a QSO confirmation and DX award service.  There are many innovative hams out there who have come up with some great things.  Maybe an organization like  ClubLog might be the organization to do it (or maybe someone we have never heard of). 
 
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 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!