[Fourlanders] FW: Logging Software

[Jim Worsham]

Wow!  I go out of town for a day and you guys start arguing!  Just kidding!
I have read all of your emails and let me suggest a course of action.  In
September Scott (sorry I don't remember his call) volunteered to do testing
as part of the process of finding a new logging program.  I suggest that we
setup a testbed for the purpose of testing both the technical/networking and
operational aspects of the various programs.  The testbed would duplicate as
closely as practical the network and computer configuration we will use on
the mountain.  We would use the same computers, cables, switches, servers,
etc.  If we really wanted to be OCD about it we could actually have radios
on the various computers.  Once we have the testbed built we can then
install and test the various programs and make an educated decision based on
criteria such as stability, ease of setup/use, etc.  We could even have a
simulated contest by taking one of our old logs and actually have all of us
sit in front of our respect operating positions and log Qs for a couple of
hours to see if we can break it under load.  This would also allow us to
stress test the network.  I know that we will not be able to simulate all of
the RF conditions but I believe this will still be much better than "testing
on the mountain".  This would also give us a way to familarize ourselves
with whatever program we choose before the June contest.  My question is, is
scott willing to host such a test bed?  I don't know if Scott is on the
reflector.  If he isn't, Ron can you talk to him about this?

73
Jim, W4KXY

-----Original Message-----
From: fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:fourlanders-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Brian McCarthy
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:11 PM
To: Sherman Banks; fourlanders at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Fourlanders] FW: Logging Software

I did not mean to sound snitty in the email, but I wanted to be absolutely
sure what aspect was being asked before I answered.

There is one single facet that is most certainly not network related.
While on the mountain for the last three or four contests, we have been
confronted with various issues. The one glaring thing that stands out for me
is that somewhere along the timeline, using the SAME log files that have
been in use all weekend, recovering from yet another crash, we get an error
from Writelog that says our log files are mismatched in regard to single op'
and multi' op'. Please be clear about this, THE SAME EXACT log files that
had been carefully started from a master blank log with multi' op' already a
saved column with dummy QSO's logged for at least one Q' for each PC. The
multi' op'
indication is a whole column. It is not something that disappears. In fact,
the logs that WriteLog has claimed to not be multi'd have had the column
visible in the log window with more than one callsign represented in the
list. The dialog screens for making a single op'
log become a multi' op' log says something to the effect of, 'the operator
column does not exist. Create it now?'

After the multi versus single mismatch error, the system really goes sh!t! I
am done with Writelog. I see that just two days ago, W5XD acknowledged that
there have been network issues for the last couple of years and that he was
asking for Beta testers. I would volunteer, but I have never been able to
get it crash in the same way at home that it crashes on the mountain. I will
admit that I do not have 4-6 computer controlled radios connected to the 4-6
PC's that I have had networked with Writelog at home. One or 2 radios, but
not the 4-6 that we have on the mountain. (Yes, I have had as many as 8 PC's
just in my own basement with another 4-5 PC's upstairs. I nearly max'ed out
a 16 port 10/100 switched hub the first day I installed it with only 2 ports
free.)

On the network side, we have replaced all the cables with shielded twisted
pair. We have made sure that the switched hubs being used are connecting the
RJ-45 STP ground shell to frame ground at the hub.We have started installing
ground rods at the generator, the power interconnect panel and at great
white trailer. We should also add one more ground rod for the other
operating trailer, but we have not seen elevated ground issues on any of the
other equipment.

Sherman, you noted that you were seeing network disconnect messages at the
end of the June contest. The failure analysis later showed that the ground
lead had come undone on at least one end of the CAT-5 STP that ran from 6m
station to the hub in great white. For the September contest, we ran that
ethernet cable through a PVC pipe laid under the carpet spread between the
two trailers to keep the cable from being damaged. We saw no disconnect
messages in September like you saw in June.

I do have some reservations about RoverLog, but I note that K8GP used it
with great success for both June and Sept. 2007. June 2007 was their debut
of RoverLog. I also note that they reported having had NO network issues in
June of 2007 which they claimed was a welcome improvement over "brand (W)".
I have read every Roverlog forum message for the past 2 years. The only down
side that I saw through all of that reading was in regard to COM ports. One
of the K8GP people has requested consolidation of the COM port functions
multiple times in the forum. It seems to be on the list and moving toward
the top, but time will tell.

I do not know what logging program I will endorse for June 2008, but
WriteLog is running a distant 3rd or 4th for me at this time.

Ok, enough unloading. I am sure there will be questions and comments.

Brian
NX9O


On Nov 19, 2007 8:51 PM, Sherman Banks <w4atl at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > When you ask, "Are we sure it is the software and not the network?"
> > what do you mean?
>
>
> Is it Writelog that is the problem or an unreliable Ethernet network?
>
_______________________________________________
Fourlanders mailing list
Fourlanders at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/fourlanders