1. RTH Exeter Status Report - 2013
PowerPoint guidelines.
Our refreshed PowerPoint style matches our refreshed corporate values. These guidelines ensure we achieve consistent, professional-looking presentations.
Font: Arial only
Bullets: Arial round
Front page slide
Headline text point size 53
Subtitle text point size 20
Presenter, location and date point size 12
Divider slides
Should be used to break up subjects or when changing content
Headline text point size 40
Content slides
Headline text size: minimum 40
First Level Bullet Points 24
Subsequent Level; Bullet Points 20
Body text size: minimum 16
Printing
Please select greyscale when printing, this will remove the backgrounds and save on ink.
Colour
Web safe green #CFF33 (R204, G255, B51), can be used to highlight important words or phrases.
Web safe red #ED2939 (R237, G41, B57), can be used to highlight severe weather warnings
Campaign presentations
If your presentation is part of a campaign or event then please ask the studio for assistance
RTH Exeter Status Report
ET-WISC Beijing /18
Chris Little
© Crown copyright Met Office

2. Contents RTH Exeter Status Report RTH & NMS connectivity from Exeter
Message switching systems – MetSwitch
File switching systems – Dart
WIS – Exeter vGISC
Items of interest
© Crown copyright Met Office

3. RTH GTS connectivity from Exeter
Connection
Circuits
Protocol
Infrastructure
Melbourne, Australia
CCT = 2Mbytes IP BW = 2Mbytes
Alphanumeric, GRIB & T4
IP sockets / FTP
RMDCN / Internet backup
Toulouse, France
CCT = 10Mbytes IP BW = 10Mbytes
FTP
RMDCN
Offenbach, Germany
CCT = 10Mbytes IP BW = 8Mbytes
FTP / FTP
Rome, Italy
All data
FTP / FTP
Tokyo, Japan
IP sockets
Moscow, Russian Federation
Pretoria, South Africa
IP Sockets / FTP
Washington, United States of America
CCT = 1Mbytes IP BW = 1Mbytes
© Crown copyright Met Office

4. RTH GTS daily traffic RTH Messages in Files in Messages out Files out
Volume in (Mbytes)
Volume out (Mbytes)
Melbourne, Australia
16958
110
118067 21
288
936
Toulouse, France
65575
18695
283559
75376
1379
9267
Offenbach, Germany
390304
5648
126964
2790
10477
1075
Rome, Italy
2689
642
16993
2003 9 64
Tokyo, Japan
141756 91
162553
n/a
289
1158
Moscow, Russian Federation
10844
1268
419129
15820 22
8286
Pretoria, South Africa
2402
122888 1
571
Washington, United States of America
215519
2539
170208 77
10448
3114
Total
843645
28993
96087
22912
23900
© Crown copyright Met Office

5. NMC GTS connectivity from Exeter
Connection
Circuits
Protocol
Infrastructure
Brussels, Belgium
CCT = 2Mbytes IP BW = 2Mbytes
Alphanumeric, GRIB & T4
FTP
RMDCN
Montreal, Canada
All data
IP Sockets / FTP
RMDCN / Internet backup
Copenhagen, Denmark
CCT = 10Mbytes IP BW = 5Mbytes
Alphanumeric & T4
IP sockets
Reykjavik, Iceland
Dublin, Ireland
De Bilt, Netherlands
CCT = 10Mbytes IP BW = 2Mbytes
IP Sockets
Oslo, Norway
Lisbon, Portugal
Madrid, Spain
IP Sockets & FTP
ECMWF, United Kingdom
CCT = 100Mbytes IP BW = 100Mbytes
Megastream
© Crown copyright Met Office

6. NMC GTS MSS daily traffic
Messages in
Files in
Messages out
Files out
Volume in (Mbytes)
Volume out (Mbytes)
Brussels, Belgium
1084
918
8534
1745 27 57
Montreal, Canada
2444
426
370006
5258 2
5164
Copenhagen, Denmark
2214
n/a
89832 32
116
Reykjavik, Iceland
239
20906
1812 3 23
Dublin, Ireland
378
2504
100447
1591
436
141
De Bilt, Netherlands
17166
107684
411
253
Oslo, Norway
2807
66367 99
Lisbon, Portugal
1073
301
28698
1270 11 31
Madrid, Spain
3173
379
38541
3893 6 46
ECMWF, United Kingdom
3020
822
181722
3061
20242
3434
Total
36000
5589
18630
21173
9935
© Crown copyright Met Office

7. WMO Message Switching System
Step change in March 2011 due to migration of internal data feeds to new WMO message switch.
Step change in July 2012 due to 8 new data feeds for internal production visualisation systems.
© Crown copyright Met Office

8. WMO Message Switching System
© Crown copyright Met Office

9. DART FTP File Switch
© Crown copyright Met Office

10. DART FTP File Switch
© Crown copyright Met Office

11. RTH Switch availability
Availability figures for period June 2012 to May 2013:
WMO message switch – 99.9%
7 outages – 1 s/w upgrade, 3 network problems, 3 bugs.
Total outage time 82 minutes.
FTP file switch – 99.9%
© Crown copyright Met Office

12. Items of Interest WMO GTS traffic only 25% of total MSS
RTH backups using FTP over internet
Met Office and Météo-France virtual GISC nodes declared operational in June 2012
RMDCN access 2 x 10Mb/s, no load sharing
Upgraded, Q2 2012, for WIS & OPERA traffic
Established new backup GTS link with Lusaka
Upgrade Q x 20Mb/s
ECWMF traffic on separate 100Mb/s link, via Dart
Internet link 2 x 100+Mb/s, via Dart
Trans-Atlantic NESDIS link 1.5Mb/s, via Dart
© Crown copyright Met Office

13. WIS – Exeter vGISC Operational since June 2012
Will be offering backup of user subscriptions in co-operation with Météo-France
Some statistics –
We currently have 42 registered users
Ingesting daily into 24hr Cache:
135MBytes of data
73,000 data files
Plans to increase this to cope with full global data set
Catalogue contains 146,000 metadata records
© Crown copyright Met Office

14. Items of Interest: OpenWIS
GISC, vGISC, DCPC, NC will all use OpenWIS
MoU being signed now, to establish Non-profit, Limited liability Association to own IPR
OpenWIS will be in public GitHub repository
Documentation, test cases, etc
Open Source governance:
User - Free
Ordinary member – annual fee, influence direction
Strategic member - big fee, control direction
© Crown copyright Met Office

15. Issues All Metadata will need updating in next year
ISO19115:2006 -> ISO19115:2013
WMO Core Metadata 1.3 -> 2.0?
What strategic approach to adopt?
Use WMO Core 1.1 -> Core 1.2 -> Core 1.3 as prototype?
Hierarchical metadata expected by users
Is it possible to have common sets defined?
Can common and specific sets be defined?
User search experience needs to be improved
Performance & Quality monitoring
© Crown copyright Met Office

16. Detailed technical issues
Metadata Policies
- Is WMOAdditional data supposed to be shared with every GISC?
- Should there be different categories/groups of WMOAdditional data?
- If so, generic ones versus bespoke arrangements?
- How does this get reflected on other GISCs? Wouldn’t they need to have the same
grouping to protect this data?
Potentially any NC would be able to access all of this data.
Metadata Hierarchy (grouping)
- Each GISC would need to be able to use the same hierarchy, is that possible?
- Agree what the grouping could be?
- Why different totals on DWD page ?
- Is there any metadata duplication between Beijing and Tokyo catalogues?
Why is some organisations metadata under GISC’s name?
E.g. TIGGE (urn:x-wmo:md:cn.gov.cma::uk.gov.metoffice.TIGGE.MOGREPS);
- E.g. Forecasts for BoM - hko.gov.hk.VHHH
© Crown copyright Met Office

17. Any Questions?
© Crown copyright Met Office