[WriteLog] Networking anomaly

[Eric - VE3GSI]

Hi Pete,

With my setup I found a scoring problem as well. I have sent my log to
Steve, N9OH who wrote the WI contest module for analyses and am waiting to
hear back from him. I spent a little bit of time trying to see if I could
find a problem in the log but found nothing myself.

Pretty sure Steve will be able to solve the mystery.

Thanks for the contest Qs,
Eric.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter E. Beedlow
> Sent: March 12, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: writelog at contesting.com
> Subject: [WriteLog] Networking anomaly
> 
> 
> We ran into something very interesting during the Wisconsin 
> QSO Party and wonder if anyone else has seen the same problem.
> 
> Equipment:
> 1st PC-Dell 7500 450M , 1G RAM running Windows 2000 and 
> Writelog V10.65C. Rig interface-serial port and CW 
> interface-parallel port.
> 
> 2nd PC--Gateway laptop, 1.6M CPU, 2G RAM running Vista and 
> Writelog V10.65C. Rig interface and CW via Microham device.
> 
> Both machines had static IP address and were connected with a 
> 4 foot Ethernet cross-over cable. All networking functions 
> worked correctly except for the anomaly.
> 
> During the contest we wondered why the QSO count and scoring 
> was different between the two machines. What we found 
> examining the logs after the contest was that some QSOs were 
> dupes on one machine but not on the other. We the cause but 
> not why the QSO information was not transferred from one 
> machine to the other correctly.
> 
> Here is how it came about. If my last QSO in Rock county was 
> with W9XXX and I sent him QRX and changed counties in the 
> software and then reentered W9XXX, pressed the Insert key to 
> send him the new report, Racine, the contact would be entered 
> correctly in my machine (Dell 7500) but would show as a dupe, 
> old county, on the Gateway. Any other contacts made on the 
> Dell or the Gateway would be transferred correctly.
> 
> As slow as it is the Dell did pickup the new county 
> information, did send the correct report and did log it 
> correctly. It's just the data transfer to the Gateway that 
> was incorrect since the old county information was transferred.
> 
> Any clues from you multi-multi guys or programers out there?
> 
> Pete, NN9K