Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] RE: Full-Feeds

dick at kb7zva.com dick at kb7zva.com
Thu Jun 8 19:26:41 UTC 2006


Your beating me up! <g>

>> I would think everyone would look at a realistic maxConnects levels.
>> No server has reached their advertised maximum connects and 
>> are prone to allowing connects they can't service.

> This is an opinion with nothing to back it up. It may very well be true
> for x server or y server, but to make the statement about servers
> in-total is inaccurate and misleading.

If it's admittedly happening at server x or server y. That's 2 out of
3 servers <g>. Tracking a few clients shows they can be connected for days
on end, then it appears that those same clients return to find themselves
at the bottom of the food chain prone to more often disconnects.  

>> What I'm seeing is all the regional/custom ports in use, 
>> especially those at the core level. Makes us wonder why the 
>> 'core' has taken on the added appearance of lower-level 
>> servers to attract end-users. 

> That is there choice to cover full features to their users and does not
> cause any server reliability issues. In fact, it improves reliability
> by reducing bandwidth requirements. You should be glad they do offer
> those services.

That means 2 things can improve reliability 1) Use of filter ports
2) Let only so many people drink from the well. Both methods provide
realistic reduction of bandwidth for a better APRS-IS. 

>> Most of this is off topic, and I apologize. However, I 
>> couldn't think of a place where we could open a dialog 
>> between server sysop's under one roof.

> While it is admirable for the aprs2.net group to promote the filter
> ports, they should not condemn the core server sysops for doing the
> same. The fact that the core servers are offering the filter ports has
> improved their reliability significantly because of reduced bandwidth
> requirements.

The reason I posted this here is for the same reason you responded.
We all use javAPRSSrvr. Looking for answers shouldn't reflect an
outright attack on anyone. I'm satisfied with most of your opinions
to my questions.   

>> Please do continue to promote the Tier 2 servers to client groups.
>> Please do not do it by disparaging the core servers. They are not your
>> enemy nor are their filtered ports the source of your connectivity
>> issues.

I asked for answers to improve our connectivity and you appear to assume
something I'm not saying. I did not think it was an attack on the core
servers. In fact, what they are doing is a very commendable class act.
I can say that because I've been witness to the growth and improvements
to the service they provide.

Our connectivity issues at Tier 2 were less of an issue when we had our 
own sub-core server. That sub-core server only had Tier 2 servers connected
to it. In turn, it was a single connect to the core, instead of each T2
server doing their own connects to the core. It worked great and we even
added a second and third sub-core unit as we grew. It worked great, especially
for end-users on the same T2 network. It wasn't until some people outside
our group viewed us as being hyper-sensitive and even rude. I decided
it was better to avoid ridicule and everything went back to the way it
was... everyone connecting to the core. 

So we bent to some political pressure and here we are back again with the
problems as before. In your own public statement and I quote: 'Clients and
IGates should connect to non-core servers.'

Later you added: 'Servers (such as javAPRSSrvr, aprsD, and AHub) should
connect to the core servers.'

Seems to me that recommendation is clear. We have the same core as we did
before but it's ok to let clients and IGates back in because they offer
the same ports we do. How in the world does that make for a better core
service by allowing additional connects? How many users can possibly use
3 core servers?

When I said that 50% of all connected clients have the ability to stay
connected more than a day... that includes ALL javAPRSSrvr's. When I
dropped my maximum connect limit to a number lower than my peak connects,
most of my clients hung around longer.  

Funny, while typing this message my bandwidth went away for a moment. Not
a single client survived <g>. Ain't it great??!!

Dick, KB7ZVA 


       





More information about the aprssig mailing list