01-20-102 13:16:58 Apparently, Jeremy is itching to give us a status report. 01-20-102 13:17:07 Fire away. 01-20-102 13:17:15 I really don't have a status report 01-20-102 13:17:59 Well, then say what you have to say. 01-20-102 13:18:02 the front page needs to be fixed when we get home Wednesday because of a accident that happened right before we left 01-20-102 13:20:53 I'm also going to be working on a new way to put the design today to make it easier for other people to work with 01-20-102 13:21:02 hmm today = together 01-20-102 13:21:27 Sounds good. 01-20-102 13:22:40 Anything else? 01-20-102 13:23:04 that is all 01-20-102 13:24:25 It is my perception DB2 has been decided on. Is this correct? 01-20-102 13:24:40 Correct. 01-20-102 13:25:43 We've made this decision officially once, and confirmed when Doug came onboard. We can't keep going back to it all the time. 01-20-102 13:26:41 Thank you. I'm pleased to hear that. Now as the song goes: I will keep a smile on my face and keep my big mouth shut. 01-20-102 13:28:13 jerryo: Please feel free to throw in your 2 cents whenever the spirit moves you. We need all the help and ideas we can get. 01-20-102 13:28:14 Doug, we're going to spend most of this meeting on your magnificent design document. However, is there something you want to say by way of preliminary remarks or a status report before that? 01-20-102 13:28:43 Walter: Is the Design document on the warpdoctor.org site anywhere? 01-20-102 13:29:13 BTW, when I say magnificent design document, I'm not being sarcastic. :-) 01-20-102 13:29:22 well - I finally figure out how to use the DTOC and it appears the DB2 is working fine and that we have a database defined 01-20-102 13:29:49 Mark: Not yet, because it is still under development. 01-20-102 13:31:49 I guess the next status report comes from yours truly. :-) 01-20-102 13:32:23 Regard the WarpDoctor Celidh forums. 01-20-102 13:33:45 1. Most important, two of them, the DB2 Discussion Group, and the Publishing Group, are online and stable. 01-20-102 13:34:47 Obviously, I would like to add some things, like a FAQ link, and a fancier background. However it does work the way it was intended. 01-20-102 13:36:03 2. Second both of them require preregistration (i.e. they are LOCKED) becaused they are designed for a limited group of people for a specific purpose. 01-20-102 13:36:55 3. Ceilidh is CASE-SENSITIVE with-regard-to the userid and password, so TYPE CAREFULLY!! 01-20-102 13:38:03 4. Please USE THEM. These are intended to be the main vehicle of discussion for some of the WD committees. 01-20-102 13:38:18 That is all. Any questions? 01-20-102 13:39:58 When you say locked do your mean readonly? Anyone can read them but only logged on folk can write? 01-20-102 13:40:29 Let me check. 01-20-102 13:42:28 No one can use (=read/post) unless they are members. 01-20-102 13:42:51 Related to that is the cookie question. 01-20-102 13:44:30 I'm sort of so-so about receiving cookies, but I realize many of my colleagues are very paranoid about receiving cookies, and I respect that. 01-20-102 13:45:04 Consequently I have set up Ceilidh to never use cookies. 01-20-102 13:45:29 When I access the forum page I can read without logging on. 01-20-102 13:45:55 However if cookies were allows, then there are several additional registration options available in Ceilidh. 01-20-102 13:46:06 allows=allowed 01-20-102 13:46:54 Jerryo, you are a member, I believe. :-) 01-20-102 13:47:23 Second, the forum page just contains the message titles. They are not restricted. 01-20-102 13:49:20 While I'm on the subject of Ceilidh, I would prefer people use http://forums.os2voice.org instead of http://www.warpdoctor.org/Ceilidh . 01-20-102 13:51:19 There is less risk of damage to WarpDoctor (that is what took down WD last week), and it is easier to maintain multiple forums if they are all in the same subdomain. Eventually I will phase out www.warpdoctor.org/Ceilidh, and then take it down. 01-20-102 13:52:02 Agenda Item 4: 01-20-102 13:52:41 Does anyone have any questions on their use of the Forums the past week? 01-20-102 13:53:53 Tomorrow, I'll try to put up a forum that's open to the general public for general discussion, just so everyone can get used to it. 01-20-102 13:56:19 I'm treating these as "real" and not "test" forums, so I won't be reseting or erasing as I did the others. I'm confident that I know enough about Ceilidh that I can provide that service. :-) 01-20-102 13:57:00 I do have to rearrange the directories once, but I should be able to do that in a manner that transparent to the users. 01-20-102 13:57:31 OK, Let's move on Agenda Item 5: New Business. 01-20-102 13:58:33 a. Review of Doug's database design document. 01-20-102 13:58:52 I'm going to take a chance, and ask how many have at least skimmed one version of this document. 01-20-102 13:59:11 I did. :-) 01-20-102 13:59:17 I have 01-20-102 13:59:23 :-) 01-20-102 13:59:35 More than skim, I imagine. 01-20-102 13:59:45 I have, especially the database/log part. 01-20-102 13:59:49 I have read it (and have a list of spelling mistakes to prove it). 01-20-102 14:00:12 OK, that's not bad. 01-20-102 14:00:23 ahhh - and I ran it through spell check! (oh well - I am a terrible speller) 01-20-102 14:00:45 Doug, I'll let you chair this portion of the meeting. 01-20-102 14:00:55 OK 01-20-102 14:01:01 Is that OK? 01-20-102 14:01:49 The basic intent of the doc is to try and describe (and to get buy in) on enough of the web site design and function to be able to procede 01-20-102 14:01:58 Which really boils down to: 01-20-102 14:02:18 1) navigational layout and techniques (i.e. screen layouts and how they work) 01-20-102 14:02:26 2) search screens and functions 01-20-102 14:03:09 3) data charactisation - i.e. is it ok to have hardware, software, and tips categories or are those too confusing 01-20-102 14:03:15 --- end 01-20-102 14:04:39 I thought your catagories were good. 01-20-102 14:05:49 I used the same nav scheme as is currently in use in the HCL stuff. I threw in the notebook control just to be interesting 01-20-102 14:06:19 I am impressed with the document. It's the kind of thing I wish I could do. 01-20-102 14:06:58 My fear is that the categories my be too fine of a distinction for the normal or first time user to handle 01-20-102 14:07:15 Not between hardware and software, but between software and tips and links 01-20-102 14:07:43 That's a tough line to draw. 01-20-102 14:08:03 To some extent you just need to be arbitrary. 01-20-102 14:08:44 Yeah - probably. What is needed is maybe a search screen that will search software, tips and links all at once 01-20-102 14:09:03 rather than what is shown which is search each one separately 01-20-102 14:09:55 How's this? 01-20-102 14:10:25 H/W: Something you can see that's attached to the computer to a job. 01-20-102 14:10:44 S/W: Code that turns the H/W on. 01-20-102 14:11:05 Don't be too arbitrary. Remember, to use this database the user has to have an operating system in place, know how to use a browser, know what it is, etc. 01-20-102 14:11:13 Documentation: What you find in manuals, .INF, and .HLP files 01-20-102 14:11:45 TIPS/INFS: Information and Instructions other than Documentation 01-20-102 14:12:09 TIPS/INFS: s/b TIPS/TRICKS 01-20-102 14:12:59 In "H/W" "to a job" s/b "to do a job" 01-20-102 14:13:15 I'm obviously trying to type too fast. :-) 01-20-102 14:14:23 As a potential user, I'd sure like to see boolean search of all forums at once. 01-20-102 14:15:21 I am thinking that pilot is right - that the average user will expect a plain old search to search everything 01-20-102 14:15:46 In About.com they allow you to select which forum, or "super-forum" or About.com, or the Internet. That seemed to work well. 01-20-102 14:15:46 perhaps we do a simple search (everything) and advanced searchs which have the drop down lists for qualifying the searches 01-20-102 14:16:34 Doug, that would be great 01-20-102 14:16:50 Sounds good. 01-20-102 14:17:33 That's what About had, except their default was, as you'd imagine, "About" 01-20-102 14:17:42 Or a forum in it. 01-20-102 14:18:09 Anothe thing that concerns me is how much validation of user IDs we do 01-20-102 14:18:40 I have it written that a new user requests an ID from the web site in order to enter or change data 01-20-102 14:18:50 I think we should implement your idea about validating email addresses. 01-20-102 14:19:04 And that the user id is essentially sent back to the user via email to insure that the user entered a valid email 01-20-102 14:19:30 There are too many bad email addresses floating around. 01-20-102 14:20:06 My concern was to balance between needing to contact someone if we had questions about an entry they made 01-20-102 14:20:22 and being to onerous in requiring information for someone to give us data 01-20-102 14:20:36 I'm also thinking of whether we should tie it in somehow to the email address given to a VOICE member. Maybe that woule be too restrictive. 01-20-102 14:20:56 And some concern about bad people with email addresses. 01-20-102 14:23:30 another thing - I have written it so that the person that makes the entry can change or delete the entry, but only for 14 days after the entry is made 01-20-102 14:23:57 I did this because people will make mistakes - and yet at some point the information becomes public (or at least WD) property 01-20-102 14:24:06 and therefor ought to be protected 01-20-102 14:24:14 The email question and validation sounds like something the committee should bounce around in the forum. 01-20-102 14:24:30 I just guessed on the 14 day time limit - maybe 30 days? 01-20-102 14:25:25 Is there some way a contributor can apply for a new time slot to make changes in the future? 01-20-102 14:25:28 (ok - we'll take up user IDs and email validation issues in the forum) 01-20-102 14:25:56 How often are you backing up to an offsite? 01-20-102 14:26:06 The 14 day limitation only applys to the entries that the user has already made - and only to each item. 01-20-102 14:26:28 A use may want to update the information at some later date 01-20-102 14:26:38 For example: if user a adds item 1 on day 1 he can change that item from day 1 to day 14 01-20-102 14:27:05 If user a adds another item - item 2 on day 16 he can change item 2 from day 16 - day 30 01-20-102 14:27:48 backup: should be done automatically every night - stored on tape once a week 01-20-102 14:27:56 Understood. Now if he wants to change item one on day 365, can he get a new time allowance? 01-20-102 14:28:51 I think that is Sector's question and the answer is??? (not currently as written but should we change it?) 01-20-102 14:29:28 * Sector was trying to clarify Gord's question. Yup that's it 01-20-102 14:29:56 Doug: OK, here is my question. If a user makes an entry on day 1; it gets backed up to tape on day 8, and then he changes it on day 9, how does the system handle that? 01-20-102 14:30:24 the day 9 entry will get backed up that night and become the current or offical entry 01-20-102 14:30:32 form that time on 01-20-102 14:30:46 Backup would be done at the next backup, information stored on pre existing backups would be the older data 01-20-102 14:31:16 going onto tape the next week - end 01-20-102 14:31:51 The backup plan is to backup to a separate harddrive every night (protect against hardware failure) 01-20-102 14:32:06 and to tape once a week - protect against data loss 01-20-102 14:32:25 OK, that makes it clearer. 01-20-102 14:32:40 How often is the backup rotated¨ 01-20-102 14:33:21 end-of week tapes - as long as we can and afford the tape 01-20-102 14:33:42 the daily backups would remain only to the end of the week 01-20-102 14:35:27 Another unresolved issue is what the document calls archive - what we discussed last week 01-20-102 14:35:51 which is the "safeguarding" of URL links entered in the database plus other data 01-20-102 14:36:13 I am assumming that this is on hold for awhile 01-20-102 14:36:19 You might consider a combination of full and differential backups ala BackAgain/2000, which would save both original and change for a period (and save a whole lot of tape.) 01-20-102 14:37:08 I have been using that program & that combination for several years with outstanding success, so I can highly recommend it. 01-20-102 14:37:27 pilot - normally that would work - but with DB2 the database creates a backup file that is then stored on tape 01-20-102 14:37:48 so each nights backup is essentially a brand new file to backagain 01-20-102 14:37:52 Learn something every day! 01-20-102 14:38:11 Good idea though 01-20-102 14:38:59 Doug, I have one overriding concern. 01-20-102 14:39:06 Is the DB2 file like a journal of that day's activity? 01-20-102 14:40:06 No - the DB2 backup file is the entire database. DB2 keeps log files which are like a journal. The way the design is written 01-20-102 14:40:30 Your document is great, and really thorough. Unfortunately, It also does a good job of showing how much work is involved in making WD work. 01-20-102 14:40:51 is that these log files are circular, meaning they will only store stuff for a limited amount of time - maybe not ever a whole day 01-20-102 14:41:08 so that a failure means we go back to the previous night's backup 01-20-102 14:42:07 Sorry walter - go ahead 01-20-102 14:42:45 I think we should find a layer of "components" that we could reasonably do within a moderate length of time, so we could show the world (and the directors of VOICE) that we had a doable project. From there we could continue adding features or modules. 01-20-102 14:43:23 I agree - we need to phase the implementation 01-20-102 14:43:26 moderate length of time= around 3-6 months. 01-20-102 14:43:53 Way too long - we should get something basic up and running in a month 01-20-102 14:44:21 That would be nice. What parts of it could we do that quickly? 01-20-102 14:44:39 Thinking....... 01-20-102 14:45:13 how about - let me do a schedule this week and send it out. I will divide the project into first release or GA 01-20-102 14:45:16 and follow on 01-20-102 14:45:42 Sounds good. 01-20-102 14:46:04 The parts the concern me are: 01-20-102 14:46:13 I have another question that popped into my head while reading your document. 01-20-102 14:46:16 1) getting the existing data from HCL, etc into the database 01-20-102 14:46:28 2) the send mail stuff - I have never done sendmail 01-20-102 14:46:32 -- end 01-20-102 14:47:07 Me neither, and I'm going to have to learn how for the forums. 01-20-102 14:47:42 we could ask for volunteers for getting the existing data into the database 01-20-102 14:48:23 Regarding my question: realistically, is the mobo and processor in Server1 powerful enough to do what we're trying to do in WarpDoctor? 01-20-102 14:48:39 is=are 01-20-102 14:48:53 how big is it again? 01-20-102 14:49:12 Let me check. 01-20-102 14:49:18 AMD K62 500 as I recall 01-20-102 14:50:09 we ought to check that _ I did some very informal testing once and discovered that response time is helped alot 01-20-102 14:50:31 by moving the database to a separate machine from the web server 01-20-102 14:51:26 But in that test the database/web server combo was running on Warp4. Compared to database on Warp 4 and web server on WSeB 01-20-102 14:52:07 with WSeB running 386HPFS - which provides for a larger disk cache. So it wasn't very scientific 01-20-102 14:52:35 We can always try it and see what happens 01-20-102 14:53:04 I couldn't find it in my email. 01-20-102 14:54:00 Lets run with what we have and see what happens - we can always upgrade later. 01-20-102 14:54:14 I volunteer for database entry. 01-20-102 14:54:30 Thanks Gord 01-20-102 14:55:02 I've ugraded 3 times since I had a machine like that; and for what it's worth, methinks we are going want to upgrade before too long. :-) 01-20-102 14:55:14 Thanks Gord. 01-20-102 14:56:40 My own personal rule of thumb is: it aint worth it unless you can at least double the CPU speed 01-20-102 14:57:12 Would depend on how CPU intensive what we're planning on doing is 01-20-102 14:58:06 I've discover a lot of things that we don't think use much processor still run faster when you get a faster cpu. 01-20-102 14:58:41 discover=discovered. 01-20-102 14:58:52 Also disk activity can be a factor. Some SCSI in there but JFS or HPFS386 with the larger cache could be usefull (not sure what FS is on there now) 01-20-102 14:59:22 OK, let's summarize. 01-20-102 14:59:58 I think I asked once and was told that all the drives are 7k rpm or slower. You can get 10k RPM scsi now from ebay for about $50 01-20-102 15:00:00 Doug's going to get us a schedule of activities he thinks we can do in a month. :-) 01-20-102 15:01:22 Those on the DB2 committee are going to hash out the email verification issue in the forum. 01-20-102 15:02:06 Gord volunteered to do the data entry. 01-20-102 15:02:12 IBM DNES-318350 18.2 GB SCSI Drive, Quantum QM336400KN-SCA 36.4 GB SCSI Drive, IBM Ultrastar 7200 RPM 9GB Ultra 2 SCSI Drive, IBM Ultrastar 7200 RPM 18GB Ultra 2 SCSI Drive 01-20-102 15:06:17 We'll meet next week at the same time: 4:00p ET 21:00 GMT . 01-20-102 15:06:26 Anyone care to move we adjourn? 01-20-102 15:06:42 move 01-20-102 15:06:51 seconded 01-20-102 15:07:22 All in favour, type Aye. 01-20-102 15:07:22 aye 01-20-102 15:07:22 aye 01-20-102 15:07:22 aye 01-20-102 15:07:27 aye 01-20-102 15:07:29 Carried. 01-20-102 15:07:42 oh