I have not a lot of experience in networking but the last time i tried via a
wireless network to connect 2 writelog computer i stayed connected only when
i wrote in start>run
ping -t ip.address
That means i made a ping all the time to the other computer. On this way i
have 2 computers connected for a long time. I believe the same: writelog
doesn't recover easy when thw network has problems
My 2 cents also (almost 3 American cents - hi hi)
kostas sv1dpi
----- Original Message -----
From: "ve3cwj" <ve3cwj@gmail.com>
To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Network reliability
>I see our favorite topic of networking WL is still running... A few years
> back, I implored WL to implement TCP/IP instead of just NetDDE. They did,
> but problems have always cropped up.
> Yes, WL seems to have some issues, and the advice on setting up networks,
> etc. is all good. However it's not so much on how RF resistant the network
> or computer is, but rather how WL recovers from a network failure itself.
> Perhaps it's how it transfers packets, syncs the logs, or whatever. But
> the
> bottom line is that WL is very poor at "recovery". That is what causes the
> "reboots", restarts, and everything else in between. The "other" logging
> software mentioned in various threads are no more immune to RF than WL.
> However, their network recovery seems to be far better.
> This past FD, I was kept bust just running around keeping the 2A (+GOTA)
> all
> synced up. We were running a totally wireless network, but RF still plays
> havoc with any computer. Occasionally, WL would just simply lock up, with
> no
> re-sync ever, until it was re-loaded. I seldom had to reboot the computer
> or
> restart network gear, it all continued to work at all times (pings always
> worked...). The issue was obviously the WL software only.
> So somehow the recovery process within WL is what has to be fixed. You can
> have an intermittent network failure every 2 minutes, and as long as the
> software recovers within 5 or 10 seconds, not much would be lost. It seems
> however, the WL relies on some long-term OS timers for network timeouts
> (that's my impression). Or, perhaps it's how WL re-parsed the log files on
> restart? I've seen some badly mangled information passing through WL at
> times of network failure...thinks like radio names with a string of "A"'s
> appended to it... Whether it is RF in the network or computer is mostly
> irrelevant (though good network setup IS always important). It is how WL
> recovers from a network "glitch" that is the key, important issue. WL is a
> good product in general, and the other logging software all have their
> issues too.... But if WL can somehow fix the network recovery process, it
> would become a much better product.
> I don't have any magic answers for this problem, but thought I'd throw my
> 2
> cents (1.8 cents American) into the discussion. Keep up the good work.
>
> Steve
> VE3CWJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|