Hi Adrian, messages via TCP put a requirement on the local PC to handle errors which all add complexity and resources to do it. The messages have to be sent, an answer waited for and if no answer, sent again until a time out is received, then handle this time out... UDP on the other hand is a send it and move on to the next thing process which requires very little overhead and no error handling by the sender. This is why UDP messaging is so popular as you do not have to worry about the outcome of a send and generally works on most networks.
Regards, Peter, vk5pj On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:03 PM Adrian <vk4...@gmail.com> wrote: > This sounds like a great idea. I am surprised it is not already done via > tcp. > > > On 7/6/20 11:23 am, Philip Gladstone wrote: > > There are a (small) number of WSJT-X users who have difficulty reporting > their spots to pskreporter. Some of these are in "difficult" areas of > network connectivity (e.g. Marine Mobile) and I suspect that the UDP > transport is losing most of their packets. The general loss rate seems to > be around 1%-2% which is somewhat higher than I would expect, but it is not > unbelievable either. > > It is also difficult to diagnose these sort of problems as the packets > appear to leave the PC running WSJT-X and not arrive at my server! > > PSKReporter was never supposed to be 100% reliable, but there seem to be a > lot of people who think otherwise.... > > In an effort to improve the situation, I have now stood up a TCP listener > that might help. The protocol is identical -- the only difference is that > you send the same messages as before over a TCP connection to > report.pskreporter.info port 4739 rather than over a UDP connection. > There is no extra framing required as the messages already contain a length > code. > > The listening server should be able to support enough connections. It will > close a connection if an invalid message is received. > > Is this change something that could be implemented? Also, currently, you > send a bunch of packets at the same time (on the five minute expiry). You > could send them as soon as they get "full" rather than waiting. > > Thanks > > Philip > > _______________________________________________ > wsjt-devel mailing list > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
