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 - 2013 ET-WISC Beijing 2013-07-15/18 Chris Little © Crown copyright Met Office

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

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

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 1297473 96087 22912 23900 © Crown copyright Met Office

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

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 1135625 18630 21173 9935 © Crown copyright Met Office

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

WMO Message Switching System © Crown copyright Met Office

DART FTP File Switch © Crown copyright Met Office

DART FTP File Switch © Crown copyright Met Office

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

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 Q1 2014 2 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

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

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

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

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 http://oai.dwd.de/oaimonitorgui/#complete ? - 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.1177.185.00521 © Crown copyright Met Office

Any Questions? © Crown copyright Met Office