Reinhard Doelz (doelz at comp.bioz.unibas.ch) wrote:
: [to all srswww managers]
: Colleagues,
: Reading http://www.embl-heidelberg.de/srs/status.html: EMNEW
: BEN, Brussels | | 44105 | 04-Apr-1995 | ?!
: BMC, Uppsala, Sweden | | 4128 | 02-Apr-1995 | ?!
: BiO, Oslo | 43.0 | 18990 | 04-Apr-1995 | ?!
: Biozentrum, Basel | | 29440 | 04-Apr-1995 | ?!
: CAOS/CAMM, Nijmegen | | 20 | 03-Apr-1995 | ?!
: CSC, Finland | 43.0 | 18990 | 03-Apr-1995 | ?!
: EBI, Hinxton, UK | | 29440 | 03-Apr-1995 | ?!
: EMBL, Heidelberg | | 40894 | 04-Apr-1995 | ?!
: INSERM, France | | 44105 | 04-Apr-1995 | ?!
: Sanger, Hinxton, UK | 43.0 | 29440 | 03-Apr-1995 | ?!
: Skirbal Inst., NY | | 44105 | 03-Apr-1995 | ?!
: I get the impression that there are two different parties going along;
: one being the BiO/CSC/Biozentrum/EBI/Sanger fraction with around 30K entries
: and one being BEN/EMBL/INSERM/Skirbal. I would suspect that the latter
: mirrors data from EMBL, and the first mirrors data from EBI. May I kindly
: ask what duplication occured?
Actually, you are quite right about two different sites being mirrored.
In the process several things happen which do not allow for syncrony
between the major sites (EBI, EMBL) and the rest. BiO, for example,
mirrors the database at 0200 hours (local time). During the past two days
the process has packed up due to networking problems. Some due to satan and
others because of yo-yo routers in the Sweden/Netherlands. I suspect the
INSERM, Skirbal and EMBL high numbers are due to double accumulation of data.
R:)
