| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 29.09.03 18:12l 244 Lines 10166 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2018-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Sep 26, 3/7
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0IGL<DB0FSG<DB0GAP<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<DB0GV<DB0SIF<DB0EA<
DB0RES<ON0AR<VK6HGR<VK3AYM<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030928/1601Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:9240 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2018-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:59:24 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 10
>Please explain this more! How does setting a 29 minute dupe check fix a
>problem that occurs within 30 seconds over xx% of time?... you see
>bursts of packets from stations that have reasonable settings from the
>various digi's that are local. I have three digi's that are very close
>and for 1 packet someone sends, I might see 6 (not really counting).
Most of these are probably not "dupes". Many of them are just the normal
outward porpogation of a multi-hop packet. Even in a perfect system with
perfect dupe checking where each digi hears 3 others, and a path of
WIDE3-3, the total number of copies distributed are 22 copies distributed
because there are 22 digipeaters that will digipeat the packet (Which is
the intent of a 3 hop flood). These are -not-dupes. THey are the normal
distribution of packets to multiple digipeaters.
I think in many areas, people are too fixated on "dupes" when in fact what
they are seeing is the normal propogation of the multiple copies that must
be distributed so that every digipeater in the local network gets a copy.
So just counting copies can be very missleading... But it can sure show
them how long hop paths grows exponentially in the number of COPIES of a
packet that eventually get distributed.
de WB4APR@amsat.org, Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: "Spider" <spider@rivcom.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:21:27 -0700
X-Message-Number: 11
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bruninga" <bruninga@usna.edu>
To: "TAPR APRS Special Interest Group" <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Cc: "TAPR APRS Special Interest Group" <aprssig@lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:59 AM
Subject: [aprssig] Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go
backwards
>>Please explain this more! How does setting a 29 minute dupe check fix a
>>problem that occurs within 30 seconds over xx% of time?... you see
>>bursts of packets from stations that have reasonable settings from the
>>various digi's that are local. I have three digi's that are very close
>>and for 1 packet someone sends, I might see 6 (not really counting).
>
>Most of these are probably not "dupes". Many of them are just the normal
>outward porpogation of a multi-hop packet. Even in a perfect system with
>perfect dupe checking where each digi hears 3 others, and a path of
>WIDE3-3, the total number of copies distributed are 22 copies distributed
>because there are 22 digipeaters that will digipeat the packet (Which is
>the intent of a 3 hop flood). These are -not-dupes. THey are the normal
>distribution of packets to multiple digipeaters.
I understand how it works! My point being, the packets should be long gone
in 29 minutes, even if they are dupes!
Under normal sending with reasonable hops, 30 seconds pretty much takes care
of it. This is why I'd like a better explanation on how 29 minutes is going
to solve a dupe problem from Henk, if he does not mind!
Jim, WA6OFT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: XASTIR and ImageMagick
From: "Curt Mills, WE7U" <hacker@tc.fluke.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Message-Number: 12
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Andrew Rich wrote:
>I have been having a few problems with XASTIR lately down to the fact I do
>not have
>ImageMagick installed.
>
>What do I need to do to make the two come together ?
>
>Will I have to re-compile XASTIR ? I already have it running.
>
>I tried to do a .geo file with URL http:// but i read it needs ImageMagick
>
>I am bitting the bullet and installign both
Best place to ask is one of the Xastir lists. There are plenty of people
there that know the answers to those kinds of questions.
Depending on whether you're running on Windows or on a Unix/Unix-like
operating system, look in the README.win32 or the INSTALL file for details
on how to get ImageMagick working for you with Xastir.
Just for the record, ImageMagick has been one of the hardest libraries to
keep working with Xastir, as they keep changing the API on us every time we
turn around. Because of this, you may need to install ImageMagick from
sources or install a different version of ImageMagick than you currently
have on your system. Just a warning.
If you have any troubles, ask on the Xastir lists and you'll get help
fairly quickly.
--
Curt Mills, WE7U hacker_NO_SPAM_@tc.fluke.com
Senior Methods Engineer/SysAdmin
"Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math!"
"Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates!" -- WE7U
"The world DOES revolve around me: I picked the coordinate system!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:45 -0500
X-Message-Number: 13
>I understand how it works! My point being, the packets should be long gone
>in 29 minutes, even if they are dupes!
>Under normal sending with reasonable hops, 30 seconds pretty much takes care
>of it. This is why I'd like a better explanation on how 29 minutes is going
>to solve a dupe problem from Henk, if he does not mind!
Static position/weather or other non-message traffic that is comming out
from static stations, too often, will be dumped on the floor instead of
digipeated. Thus, the digi becomes the controller of net cycle time...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: WIDEn-N filtering
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Number: 14
FOr what it is worth, I made a screen capture of the digi network in the
Mid-Atlantic area and it is very interesting to observe that almost ALL
of our metropolitan Washington DC area digis are NOT WIDEn-N and this
is almost 50% of our digis.
See http://web.usna.navy.mil/~bruninga/aprs/fix14439.html
The other 50% are WIDEn-N, but in all cases but one, they are along the
lower population density eastern shore and the lower population area along
the appalachian mountains where all the trucks go.
We could not have planned it better if we had tried. We just evolved that
way (It also shows how resistant to change some things in Ham radio are)..
We should have upgraded to WIDEn-N 9 years ago, but now, the fact that we
didnt has saved our LANS from DX packets and most users still use
relatively short RELAY and WIDE paths...
de WB4APR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: Steve Jones <s.jones@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:28:22 -0400
X-Message-Number: 15
on 9/26/03 9:59 AM, Bob Bruninga at bruninga@usna.edu wrote:
>Most of these are probably not "dupes". Many of them are just the normal
>outward porpogation of a multi-hop packet. Even in a perfect system with
>perfect dupe checking where each digi hears 3 others, and a path of
>WIDE3-3, the total number of copies distributed are 22 copies distributed
>because there are 22 digipeaters that will digipeat the packet (Which is
>the intent of a 3 hop flood). These are -not-dupes. THey are the normal
>distribution of packets to multiple digipeaters.
Dupe, dupe, dupe. The same packet repeated by the same digi multiple times
is a dupe. If the content hasn't changed then why repeat it?
Henk can correct me if I'm wrong but Digined inspects the contents of the
packet and if it hasn't changed from the last time it digi'd it then it
discards it.
If my digi digi's a wide3-3 packet and then another digi sends it back as
wide3-2, my digi will not repeat it. Cuts down on traffic.
--
Steve <s.jones@rogers.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: Dave VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:48:14 -0500
X-Message-Number: 16
>Dupe, dupe, dupe. The same packet repeated by the same digi multiple times
>is a dupe. If the content hasn't changed then why repeat it?
So if I'm sitting still, I disappear?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Part 2/2 -Re: Take Control - oh let's just go backwards
From: Steve Jones <s.jones@rogers.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:09:49 -0400
X-Message-Number: 17
on 9/26/03 1:48 PM, Dave VanHorn at dvanhorn@cedar.net wrote:
>>Dupe, dupe, dupe. The same packet repeated by the same digi multiple times
>>is a dupe. If the content hasn't changed then why repeat it?
>
>So if I'm sitting still, I disappear?
Depends on the amount of time set for dupe checking at the digi and whatever
value the end user has chosen.
If you beacon once then my digi will digi you and all the others will. What
my digi won't do is digi the same packet repeated by another digi. There's
no reason to since everybody within range of my digi has already heard it
once.
If dupe checking is set to 30 seconds, it takes care of most dupes generated
by the digi's as the WIDEN-N decrements down. If you are standing still and
beaconing any faster then 30 seconds then yes, the digi will ignore you.
Not sure how many people have their beacon rate set as low as 30 seconds
when standing still?
Even if you do beacon within the 30 seconds (while standing still), most
users probably won't have cleared you off their screens. I think my Ui-View
timeout is set for 45 minutes.
Of course, some digi owners could set their dupe checking even higher to
knock out people who continuously beacon while standing still. Nothing's
worse then a mobile parked for the weekend beaconing every 30 seconds.
--
Steve <s.jones@rogers.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
