Read in Recommended support checks about hopefully helpful practises used at ECMWF which can be shared. Some examples and source codes are also available there.
Support checks (on provider's end)
| Organization | Data acquisition method | Data transfer check | Data delay check | Data completeness check | Data quality check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BoM (ammc) | ftp | ||||
CMA (babj) | ftp | ||||
| CNR-ISAC (isac) | http | ||||
CNRM (lfpw) | ecpds (push) | ||||
ECCC (cwao) | sftp | ||||
ECMWF (ecmf) | MARS retrieval | N/A | YES | YES | YES |
HMCR (rums) | ftp | NO | YES | YES | NO |
| JMA (rjtd) | ftp | ||||
KMA (rksl) | ecpds (push, dedicated line) | ||||
| NCEP (kwbc) | ftp | YES | YES | YES | NO |
| UKMO (egrr) | ecpds (push, dedicated line) | YES | YES | NO | NO |
- Data acquisition method: Acquisition method is pull from the provider's location to ECMWF's premises if not specified
- Data transfer check: Is the data transfer checked to avoid any technical issues on the way from provider's location to ECMWF's premises? Was the data delivered bit identical?
- Data delay check: Is the potential delay of data availability checked on the provider's side?
- Data completeness check: Is the data content (number of expected fields; reference field list etc) checked on the provider's side?
- Data quality check: Is there any data quality control to avoid e.g. unrealistic parameter values due to interpolation or any other kind of error either scientific or technical?
Support incidents
Number of operational incidents since August 2018
Year | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|
| Quarter | Q3 | Q4 |
created | 10 | 11 |
| updated | 10 | 14 |
| closed | 5 | 7 |
- Number of updated incidents includes the newly created or closed ones
- Updated or closed incidents may refer to those from previous quarters