Date
1 - 20 of 99
Is wsprnet falling to pieces again ?
|
Well it's been great all week, zero problems.
I read last night that they were trying to get the old database re-atached or something and producing the daily or monthly download files. Looks like it's killed it again. At least that probably narrows down the problem, which is actually a good sign. Nice to see good progress this week though, it's been quite a delight to use it. 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hi Graham
It's totally down again as I type, ironically :-) Not even as if there's a dns entry. I see I'm missing a few weeks of 10m spots too today. Looks like a lot of data gone missing. Given past experience, I'm not to confident that anything will get cured. It'll work well for a few days before falling over again. :-( I live in hope though, and how they do fund a cure. 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Graham, VE3GTC
they were doing some maintenance today and seems there is some trouble reloaded spots into the database. There is also a note of https being implemented as well. So, there is evidence of there being some maintenance and changes going on to address some issues. there is certainly quite some way to go but it is encouraging to see that there is some work being done to make things better. cheers Graham ve3gtc On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 10:07 PM Andy Brilleaux via Groups.Io <punkbiscuit=googlemail.com@groups.io> wrote: As seen today on wsprnet chat.. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
As seen today on wsprnet chat..
One user noted a 48% failure rate over 3 days...lol.
Nuff said. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chris,
never had multiple instances running so I haven't a clue. Check that each instance creates it's own decoded text file (is WSJT-X the same as old WSPR,since that's the file name I used) etc. At the end of the day, curl command is simply "curl path to file path to destination" + whatever params you might need as extras. I seem to recall that there's a retry option, sure you're gonna need that too. But one .bat file can do all of them, it's just a list of things to do at the end of the day for the PC. Nothing that a little Googling and experimentation cannot solve ;-) 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chris Wilson
Hello Andy,
Thursday, November 14, 2019 Thanks very much for this Andy, I'll give it a go later, but one question arises immediately. If I have multiple instances of WSJT-X running (which I do most of the time, some on different receivers) do they create multiple instances of WSPR.TXT? And if so do I then need to run multiple .BAT files to upload them separately? Thanks again :) Best regards, Chris 2E0ILY mailto:chris@...
-- Best regards, Chris Wilson (2E0ILY) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 02:09 PM, Andy Brilleaux wrote:
I'm not sure what the Windows Poweshell command is, but I'm sure a quick Google would get youActually I think it's the same for Powershell in Windows. So a upload.bat file might be like this. curl -F ‘data=@C:\WSPR\ALL_WSPR.TXT’ call=$2e0ily -F grid=$io82qv http://wsprnet.org/post SLEEP 600 That's it. You may need to specify the path where curl resides, or also where your exact ALL_WSPR.TXT file is. That should be enough for a start. 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Use cURL (available on any OS).
Create a .bat or BASH file to run in the background that periodically to send the txt file that wspr or wsjtx creates of decoded spots. The file from memory is called ALL_WSPR.txt Syntax for cURL is curl -F ‘data=@C:\WSPR\ALL_WSPR.TXT’ call=$2e0ily -F grid=$io82qv http://wsprnet.org/post It'll be up to you how decide you want to treat each ALL_WSPR.txt file. E.G upload the same growing file every 2 minutes, 10 minutes, or delete the file once uploaded and then start with a fresh one etc. On Linux I'd use the sleep command to make something run again in a certain amount of seconds. I'm not sure what the Windows Poweshell command is, but I'm sure a quick Google would get you started. 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chris Wilson
Hello N1BUG,
Thursday, November 14, 2019 Script? Would you consider sharing it please Paul? I spotted you between my LF WSPR2 TX's last night but I do not think they all made it to WSPRnet... What seems to happen is if the server cannot be reached during the following receive period it is "thrown away". Good to see you back and very powerful on LF, you are doing a remarkable job again this season! Best regards, Chris 2E0ILY mailto:chris@... N> Sorry, I can no longer resist jumping in here with my thoughts. To N> make this somewhat on topic, my U3S is such a wonderful WSPR beacon! N> It's running on LF right now. :-) N> Running WSPR on LF overnight it is very obvious WSPRnet has rejected N> many attempted spot uploads. On LF there are certain stations I know N> for a fact decode me every period but often spots from those N> stations didn't make it into the WSPRnet system. This always N> coincides with times when the WSPRnet web site is extremely sluggish N> or won't load at all. For a while last year I uploaded spots via a N> different method, using a script. This allowed me to see when N> uploads failed due to server timeouts, which was shockingly often. N> The volume of spots processed by WSPRnet is a fraction of that N> handled by PSK Reporter which doesn't seem to be having any issues. N> I agree the usefulness of WSPR is declining due to these problems N> with WSPRnet. This affects LF operators like myself deeply. We might N> get just one spot from a given station or country once in a night, N> once in a month, once in a year... but that one can be among those N> WSPRnet rejects during its times of struggle. If you are actually N> using WSPR to study propagation, missing data can be a real problem. N> I don't think the intent of WSPR was only to see if propagation N> supports a QSO, but... On LF we are using QSO modes which equal and N> surpass the decoding capabilities of WSPR: N> http://www.472khz.org/SlowJT9/ N> Perhaps if there were a large enough volume of requests to the N> WSPRnet admins, this problem would be addressed. Just a wild N> thought. There is some interesting and revealing insight in the N> WSPRnet forums for those willing to dig deep enough to find it. N> 73, N> Paul N1BUG N> -- Best regards, Chris Wilson (2E0ILY) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
N1BUG
Sorry, I can no longer resist jumping in here with my thoughts. To
make this somewhat on topic, my U3S is such a wonderful WSPR beacon! It's running on LF right now. :-) Running WSPR on LF overnight it is very obvious WSPRnet has rejected many attempted spot uploads. On LF there are certain stations I know for a fact decode me every period but often spots from those stations didn't make it into the WSPRnet system. This always coincides with times when the WSPRnet web site is extremely sluggish or won't load at all. For a while last year I uploaded spots via a different method, using a script. This allowed me to see when uploads failed due to server timeouts, which was shockingly often. The volume of spots processed by WSPRnet is a fraction of that handled by PSK Reporter which doesn't seem to be having any issues. I agree the usefulness of WSPR is declining due to these problems with WSPRnet. This affects LF operators like myself deeply. We might get just one spot from a given station or country once in a night, once in a month, once in a year... but that one can be among those WSPRnet rejects during its times of struggle. If you are actually using WSPR to study propagation, missing data can be a real problem. I don't think the intent of WSPR was only to see if propagation supports a QSO, but... On LF we are using QSO modes which equal and surpass the decoding capabilities of WSPR: http://www.472khz.org/SlowJT9/ Perhaps if there were a large enough volume of requests to the WSPRnet admins, this problem would be addressed. Just a wild thought. There is some interesting and revealing insight in the WSPRnet forums for those willing to dig deep enough to find it. 73, Paul N1BUG |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan G4ZFQ
There seems to be a large number of operators whose transmit frequency > is causing the traffic jams. Is it really necessary to transmit every10 > minutes on a band that can be seen to be open by a quick look at the > map. Geoff, Good points but there so many operators who do not even look at WSPRnet. It seems most just do their thing. How do you get very many to change? As a propagation tool, not the best but, spots both ways will show an indication. It really just needs a few operators in an area but many want to spot and be spotted. 73 Alan G4ZFQ |
|||
|
|
|||
|
WSPR is actually not that good for testing propagation paths for real communication. The mode can't be used for two-way comms, and it's weak-signal performance is better than any comparable narrow QSO-modes. In other words, I can see a WSPR path open on the map, but it doesn't necessarily mean I can use that path to communicate. I can look at the SNR of the spotting stations to maybe get an idea if other modes would work on that path. One of its most useful functions at this point is for HAB balloon tracking. Maybe one of the problems with too many WSPR beacons is the Raspberry Pi method. The RPi itself can transmit, so it's simple to set up as a WSPR beacon. Plenty of walk-throughs on how to set it up, but amazingly not much info on how to inhibit the transmit rate. I've seen many 100% TX rate on the waterfall. One in particular was so bad, it was QRMing my RX on a daily basis. I emailed the guy, and he said he couldn't figure out how to stop the Raspberry from 100% TX cycle. He just set it up according to an online walk-through, turned it on, and walked away.
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, 7:20:18 PM AST, geoff M0ORE via Groups.Io <m0ore@...> wrote:
Could the perceived problem with WSPRnet be that there are now
too many users. There seems to be a large number of operators whose transmit
frequency is causing the traffic jams. Is it really necessary to
transmit every 10 minutes on a band that can be seen to be open by
a quick look at the map. My transmit fraction is set to less than
10%, often 7 or 8%. If you are monitoring a frequency band not
usually open and not many spots occurring, then perhaps a higher
frequency may be appropriate. Testing a new aerial installation is
a good use for WSPR but you can do just as well on receive as
transmit and once you have received a station, you don't need to
pick up that station every 10 minutes. The system is intended for low power operation but I suspect that many operators are using to much power. How many QCX operators have achieved the magic 5 watts output and are transmitting this power on WSPR. It should be reduced by 10dB to 500mW. Are the operators using a QCX receiving as well on another receiver or just transmitting and relying on others to report their signals? Joe and his team have designed a brilliant means of radio
communication which has been made available to all amateurs free
of charge. Head down behind the battlements, Geoff |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joe Street
"There seems to be a large number of operators whose transmit
frequency is causing the traffic jams. Is it really necessary to
transmit every 10 minutes on a band that can be seen to be open by
a quick look at the map." Or a quick look at the waterfall on one of many web based SDR's especially once you are familiar with them and what their antennas normally pick up. I can tell at a glance on my local KiwiSDR if propagation is happening and where. I agree that wspr is a valuable tool for evaluating a new antenna whether it be in regard to RX or TX but the designers never anticipated so many beacons running simultaneously around the clock. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
geoff M0ORE
Could the perceived problem with WSPRnet be that there are now
too many users. There seems to be a large number of operators whose transmit
frequency is causing the traffic jams. Is it really necessary to
transmit every 10 minutes on a band that can be seen to be open by
a quick look at the map. My transmit fraction is set to less than
10%, often 7 or 8%. If you are monitoring a frequency band not
usually open and not many spots occurring, then perhaps a higher
frequency may be appropriate. Testing a new aerial installation is
a good use for WSPR but you can do just as well on receive as
transmit and once you have received a station, you don't need to
pick up that station every 10 minutes. The system is intended for low power operation but I suspect that many operators are using to much power. How many QCX operators have achieved the magic 5 watts output and are transmitting this power on WSPR. It should be reduced by 10dB to 500mW. Are the operators using a QCX receiving as well on another receiver or just transmitting and relying on others to report their signals? Joe and his team have designed a brilliant means of radio
communication which has been made available to all amateurs free
of charge. Head down behind the battlements, Geoff On 13/11/2019 12:00, Andy Brilleaux via
Groups.Io wrote:
Hi Graham / Alan |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan G4ZFQ
Joe wrote:
a thing of the past.I'm getting that way too:-) I also have that perverse optimism that things will improve.. With WSPRnet it has before. 73 Alan G4ZFQ |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Graham, VE3GTC
And I tried again last night about 15 minutes later and had trouble getting into wsprnet.org - very inconsistent but consistent with your comments. It seems as though wspr's popularity has exceed it's ability to keep up with itself. Yes, I think that 6% figure is about in line with my observations too. wsprnet.org is well past it's "best before date" and in need of some renovations. cheers, Graham ve3gtc On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 4:21 AM Alan G4ZFQ <alan4alan@...> wrote: > I just tried and wsprnet.org <http://wsprnet.org> seems to be working |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Kārlis Goba
Poorly maintained sites with downtimes are also things of the past. Then again, anyone is welcome to create a new site, publish their API and incentivise people to come over to the new site. One does not have to use WSJT-X to decode WSPR anymore, there are other decoders/monitors, and if not, they can be created.
-- Karlis YL3JG |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hi Graham / Alan
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 09:21 AM, Alan G4ZFQ wrote: I checked a few days ago about 6% of my spots did not get into the database, not ideal but not a disaster.6% now, and it ill no doubt get worse :-( Imagine that a hard disk was failing at a rate of 6% per annum maybe, we'd soon be trashing that disk, if not already doing so. That 6% might well contain valuable spots, especially on niche bands or balloon projects that need every spot they can get. Now I don't want anyone to think I'm sensationalising the problem, I'm actually a very casual user, maybe a few times a day just to catch up on what's happening. But when it seems that every casual look is failing to connect at least 50% of the time, and maybe four browser refreshes are required then it's a pretty poor user experience. Could we imagine trying to have a quick look at any other website, say bbc.co.uk or groups.io each day and wondering if we're going to see anything ? Yesterday I did actually manage to see a server error message about having too many connections, so there's clearly too many users these days, and it IS going to get worse. I'm seriously considering substituting my TX schedules with something else on my U2's and U3 rigs. They TX QRSS and a WSPR frame every 10 minutes, maybe remove WSPR and insert some Slow Hell or even Opera into the frame. <shrugs_shoulders> 73 de Andy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joe Street
Cell phone life has led people to have very limited ability to accept anything less than instant gratification. Patience, tolerance and attention span are a thing of the past. On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:30 PM Andy Brilleaux via Groups.Io <punkbiscuit=googlemail.com@groups.io> wrote: Never thought I'd say this, but I think WSPR is now dead. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan G4ZFQ
I just tried and wsprnet.org <http://wsprnet.org> seems to be working quite well at the moment. Earlier today it was on and off.Graham, Andy, Yes, but in spite of that it collects over a million spots per day. 16-1700 users. I checked a few days ago about 6% of my spots did not get into the database, not ideal but not a disaster. I'm not convinced WSPR is dead. 73 Alan G4ZFQ |
|||
|
|