[ct-user] CT 9.92-001
David Robbins K1TTT
k1ttt at arrl.net
Wed Dec 3 00:50:53 EST 2003
9.92 worked the whole weekend on 6 dos machines here on Ethernet. We
did notice a gradual slowing down of logging operation which was solved
for short times by rebooting.... I finally set bandmapage to 15 and it
seemed to be better, probably just too many spots for the old machines
to sort and resort all the time.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ct-user-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:ct-user-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Wilbert Knol
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 00:21
> To: ct-user at contesting.com
> Subject: [ct-user] CT 9.92-001
> Hi all,
> In the CQWW-CW, we had a couple of unexplained computer crashes, using
> 3 PCs, running DOS, networked over Ethernet, with packet. CT
> On one occasion, CT crashed on the #1 PC (time server) during ALT-G.
> After re-booting, I noticed the F4 message had lost the first
> character of our callsign.
> Also, the crash moved the computer clock ahead by 18 minutes. I didn't
> spot this straight away. The wrong time propagated through the
> network affecting all three stations. Our log now has 20 minutes
> worth of 'rubber clocked' contacts in it. They are unrecoverable as
> they are interlaced with correctly logged QSOs.
> Has anyone else experienced these problems?
> Another question. This is the 2nd time we've had time-keeping
> glitches. If it happens again, and it gets away on me, our QSL
> manager will skin me alive.
> To avoid this undesirabe situation, I am keen to QSY to an earlier
> version of CT that leaves the BIOS alone. What version of CT is
> considered to be rock-solid for networked M/M? I am wondering whether
> Ken has gone to a different compiler recently.
> Wilbert, ZL2BSJ
> CT-User mailing list
> CT-User at contesting.com
> CT on the web: http://www.k1ea.com/
More information about the CT-User