AirNav Systems Forum
AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com => AirNav RadarBox and RadarBox24.com Discussion => Topic started by: AirNav Development on September 08, 2009, 01:17:31 AM
-
| Period Begin: | 2009-08-09 01:14:52 GMT |
| Period End: | 2009-09-08 01:14:51 GMT |
| Date |
Outages |
Downtime |
Uptime% |
| 2009-Aug-09 Sun |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-10 Mon ^ |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-11 Tue |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-12 Wed |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-13 Thu |
1 |
0 hrs, 17 mins, 36 secs |
98.778% |
| 2009-Aug-14 Fri |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-15 Sat |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-16 Sun |
1 |
0 hrs, 20 mins, 5 secs |
98.605% |
| 2009-Aug-17 Mon ^ |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-18 Tue |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-19 Wed |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-20 Thu |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-21 Fri |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-22 Sat |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-23 Sun |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-24 Mon ^ |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-25 Tue |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-26 Wed |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-27 Thu |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-28 Fri |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-29 Sat |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-30 Sun |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Aug-31 Mon ^ |
1 |
0 hrs, 19 mins, 51 secs |
98.346% |
| 2009-Sep-01 Tue |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-02 Wed |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-03 Thu |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-04 Fri |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-05 Sat |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-06 Sun |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-07 Mon ^ |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| 2009-Sep-08 Tue |
0 |
0 hrs, 0 mins, 0 secs |
100.000% |
| Total: |
3 |
0 hrs, 57 mins, 32 secs |
N/A |
| Average: |
0.1 |
0 hrs, 1 mins, 51 secs |
99.863% |
-
Airnav,
we have to talk the same language here. It may not be the main server that is down but I lose the network every 5 mins or so and it is not my internet connection. So please do not try and justify it with those stats. Other people see the same so it is not just me.
I am being patient for the next version so please do not hit me with that Beta testing phrase again.
There is a problem and it would be nice if Support acknowleded it!
Jeremy
-
If it was a problem would we all not see it?
-
i have to use version 2 otherwise i get downtime with the servers, regardless of what support says. the beta is not working well enough to install yet.
frank
-
Jeremy,
If your using beta version then there is an issue with it regarding the network and we mentioned this on the beta thread quite a few times.
I think some of you are still unaware of what a beta means and also that its unsupported as its not a finished stable version.
-
i have to use version 2 otherwise i get downtime with the servers, regardless of what support says. the beta is not working well enough to install yet.
Unless you're not using the network in which case it's vastly superior to v2.01 in virtually every situation.
When 3.03 (or whatever version had to be reached to fix the remaining bugs) is released you will not have this problem.
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
Frank - Thank you.
Ferris - Thats a bold statement. Are you sure about that?
Airnav - I know, I know, I know! so why cut and paste you server activity report at the top of this thread? You are making a statement that there is not a problem with your server then saying the beta version does have a problem.
Soory! Frustration setting in as Airnav did suggest the new corrected version would be out several weeks ago.
I will go back to v.2 and look forward to the new version. I will also shut up and go and play with another toy!!
Jeremy.
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
Frank - Thank you.
Ferris - Thats a bold statement. Are you sure about that?
Airnav - I know, I know, I know! so why cut and paste you server activity report at the top of this thread? You are making a statement that there is not a problem with your server then saying the beta version does have a problem.
Soory! Frustration setting in as Airnav did suggest the new corrected version would be out several weeks ago.
I will go back to v.2 and look forward to the new version. I will also shut up and go and play with another toy!!
Jeremy.
hi Jeremy.
A bit confusion all right, airnav next time you post network times say this excludes the beta version, you would save all this crying, and airnav we are going round in circles with these posts.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/forum/index.php?topic=3362.0
from pat.
-
Fenris:
"When 3.03 (or whatever version had to be reached to fix the remaining bugs) is released you will not have this problem."
I'm sorry but you clearly don't know about the programming and technical details behind the software so it would be better if you avoided these kind of false comments.
V3.02 corrects all previous versions bugs and because of very strict time-out value it gives problems in some users machines with less reliable internet connections (time-out is 30 secs only an download interval is 30 secs so if you miss a download all network flights will be time-out).
Next time try to make more valid/correct comments otherwise it would be be better not to post.
-
Steady on, Dev - I don't think Fenris deserved those comments - unless I missed something, what he said was about right.
Rod
-
Fenris:
"When 3.03 (or whatever version had to be reached to fix the remaining bugs) is released you will not have this problem."
I'm sorry but you clearly don't know about the programming and technical details behind the software so it would be better if you avoided these kind of false comments.
V3.02 corrects all previous versions bugs and because of very strict time-out value it gives problems in some users machines with less reliable internet connections (time-out is 30 secs only an download interval is 30 secs so if you miss a download all network flights will be time-out).
Next time try to make more valid/correct comments otherwise it would be be better not to post.
But Airnav - my internet connection is 100%.
I think, therefore, that perhaps my machine can not take the download and process the data at the same time hence then timing out?
J.
-
Perhaps the minimal PC spec needs amending.
J.
-
Let's not start a confusion here.
As our support wrote, until now any V3 is a beta version: this means that users should use it at their own risk. It's a test version.
Regarding Fenris comments:
"Unless you're not using the network in which case it's vastly superior to v2.01 in virtually every situation."
This is not correct at all (also explained above why). Users have to pay attention to what they write on the forum otherwise there is a risk of giving a false idea of what's going on to other users.
V3.03 is about to be released and everybody will be happy by then. We are just waiting for 2 users to confirm their reported problems were corrected.
-
Steady on, Dev - I don't think Fenris deserved those comments - unless I missed something, what he said was about right.
Rod
Well Rod, the last time I got my feathers singed by Airnav it was because I was "asking strange inside technical questions" and now it's because I do not have any knowledge of what is happening. You can't win <vbg>!
To recap my opinion:
V3.01 *beta* has a problem with network flights under certain circumstances. Personally I have used it because it works better for me that V2.01, I don't use the network much. When I have I have seen the same problem, where network flights disappear for a while on some refreshes. I'm aware that this is the nature of betas.
V3.02 *beta* has not been released for testing to other than the closed beta group, so I don't know if it fixed this network flight issue. But some (other?) things clearly weren't quite right as Airnav stated that another release is needed to fix the last bugs.
V3.03 (which might be labelled a beta, and might not) should have all of this sorted out.
Sincerely Airnav, I was not trying to be awkward, just pointing out that the original complaint was unreasonable since you have said repeatedly that a beta can have bugs.
Everyone happy now?
;-)
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
I am using the beta version.
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
I am using the beta version.
hi.
Beta
"Beta" is a nickname for software which has passed the alpha testing stage of development and has been released to users for software testing before its official release. It is the prototype of the software that is released to the public. Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback, so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed. Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.
no comment from pat
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
I am using the beta version.
So are you saying you never see the problem with v3.01?
It happens to me on the same connection where v2.01 network flights are completely stable.
Since it is down to a strict timeout, I would expect everyone using this beta version to see the problem some of the time at least.
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
I am using the beta version.
hi.
Beta
"Beta" is a nickname for software which has passed the alpha testing stage of development and has been released to users for software testing before its official release. It is the prototype of the software that is released to the public. Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback, so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed. Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.
no comment from pat
Hi Pat
I am not sure if that response was for me if so I know what beta is, I am beta testing for Airnav ;-)
I am still running more than one version of the beta on separate systems and we do see different issues that is the reason for the testing. What I am saying is that WE don't all see the same problem.
In Airnav's defence they do listen to feedback and are actively solving the current problems.
-
Not exactly correct Fenris.
The issue was we had a strict timeout but if your net connection was good all the time and our server was happy as well it can download well before the timeout phase is reached.
It was when the download time takes longer than the timeout that the issue appears. Hence why a lot of customers haven't noticed it being on very fast connections.
-
EMA - you will only see it in the Beta version.
I am using the beta version.
So are you saying you never see the problem with v3.01?
Since it is down to a strict timeout, I would expect everyone using this beta version to see the problem some of the time at least.
Hi Fenris
I think Airnav have answered this for you, in my case a have a 20MB broadband connection so the download did not take longer than the timeout.
-
Not exactly correct Fenris.
The issue was we had a strict timeout but if your net connection was good all the time and our server was happy as well it can download well before the timeout phase is reached.
It was when the download time takes longer than the timeout that the issue appears. Hence why a lot of customers haven't noticed it being on very fast connections.
The speed of the connection is not the governing factor, it's the latency that can affect you. That latency can be due to any link in the chain, so it could be down to contention local to you, between two of the nodes in the link, or even at the server if it's handling many connections.
But I'm sure you know all that, the real point of this is that the fix is simply to not timeout the network traffic if a single refresh (or a small number) is missed, which is likely to be the fix that has been applied.
-
The speed of the connection is not the governing factor, it's the latency that can affect you. That latency can be due to any link in the chain, so it could be down to contention local to you, between two of the nodes in the link, or even at the server if it's handling many connections.
But I'm sure you know all that, the real point of this is that the fix is simply to not timeout the network traffic if a single refresh (or a small number) is missed, which is likely to be the fix that has been applied.
That is correct :)
-
Totally correct Fenris.