incith:weather (2.8p) (Dec. 18th, 2008)

incith · Post by **incith** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:54 pm

Yeah, NOAA used to be a lot more accomodating for searching. Used to use it on old perl bots (infobot) that I used to run prior to eggdrop.

There was a script someone posted here awhile back, basically they could not [exec] on their Windrop so they wrote a PHP script to do the [exec] for them and return the data. I never could get over the innovation of this idea, perhaps it would be possible to make another webserver fetch the wunderground HTML and then pass it back to the bot in a similar manner. I'd just need someone else to write the PHP script as I can't really be bothered (I do know some PHP and it's probably simple to pull a new http request within but I don't want to learn it right now). And then you, the user, would need to host the PHP script either locally or somewhere else, and I would have to modify :weather to support this.

Post by **willyw** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:12 pm

Hello,

Using incith weather v2.8p

We like it. Works great, and the display has some config options.
Very nice.

I like the improved readability when using the \n switch, to put each report item on a new line.

However, it seems to slow down the display of the information, as there is a slight pause after it displays each line in the channel.

I'm thinking this some function of eggdrop, and not so much the script - but I have to ask - is there a way to speed this up?
It is, after all, a limited amount of info - so why not just post it all quickly?

Thanks

incith · Post by **incith** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:48 am

I'm not sure what version you're using, I'm guessing I just made this change recently in my local copy.

Basically, do a search for putserv and replace them with putquick and this should make the output instant.

The SVN version has this already (and !time) -- http://svn.incith.com/index/incith/trunk/#path_trunk_

Post by **willyw** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:36 am

incith wrote:I'm not sure what version you're using,

Hello,

Using incith weather v2.8p

I'm guessing I just made this change recently in my local copy.
Basically, do a search for putserv and replace them with putquick and this should make the output instant.

Thanks for reply and the tip.
Just tried it.
Found "putserv" twice, and changed both.
Tested.

Yes, it did make a difference. But only for the first 5 lines of output.
They came up very quickly. Much nicer.
But the remaining lines came up same as before - Line-by-line with a little pause between each.
Any ideas as to what is causing this?

The SVN version has this already (and !time) -- http://svn.incith.com/index/incith/trunk/#path_trunk_

What does SVN mean?

Thanks

p.s. did you get my PM re: incith google?

speechles · Post by **speechles** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:59 am

willyw wrote:Yes, it did make a difference. But only for the first 5 lines of output.
They came up very quickly. Much nicer.
But the remaining lines came up same as before - Line-by-line with a little pause between each.
Any ideas as to what is causing this?

Sure, eggdrop queues. You see, most people get the mistaken impression that using putserv instead of puthelp or putquick instead of putserv that your actually going to see the output faster. This isn't entirely true (as usually at then 4th or 5th line it will slow down), to really get instantaneous output requires building a new procedure, perhaps the putnow function can be used (but will definitely get your eggdrop excess flooded every now and then). Eggdrop will natively queue your messages regardless of which command you use to put*.

Post by **willyw** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:34 pm

speechles wrote:
willyw wrote:Yes, it did make a difference. But only for the first 5 lines of output.
They came up very quickly. Much nicer.
But the remaining lines came up same as before - Line-by-line with a little pause between each.
Any ideas as to what is causing this?
Sure, eggdrop queues. You see, most people get the mistaken impression that using putserv instead of puthelp or putquick instead of putserv that your actually going to see the output faster. This isn't entirely true (as usually at then 4th or 5th line it will slow down), to really get instantaneous output requires building a new procedure, perhaps the putnow function can be used (but will definitely get your eggdrop excess flooded every now and then). Eggdrop will natively queue your messages regardless of which command you use to put*.

Thanks for the reply.

I tried it, briefly so far - and yes, it does make a difference.

But, can you elaborate on this, please:

(but will definitely get your eggdrop excess flooded every now and then).

I don't think I understand you.

It can't be that eggdrop will censure itself for "flooding". So you must mean something to do with the IRCD?
Is that it?

Further, in this specific situation - using your putnow proc with the output of incith weather - what could happen? anything?

I'm thinking that we know in advance the length of the output.... and it is not excessive. To me, the definition of "flood" is far more than just 11 lines that are not even complete full lines.
Is it even possible that some sort of "flood" protection at the server level could be triggered by using your putnow proc with incith weather's 11 line output?

Thanks

speechles · Post by **speechles** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:42 pm

willyw wrote:But, can you elaborate on this, please:
(but will definitely get your eggdrop excess flooded every now and then).
I don't think I understand you.

It can't be that eggdrop will censure itself for "flooding". So you must mean something to do with the IRCD?
Is that it?

*** Quits: YourBot (~ident@your.bots.mask.com) (Quits: Excess Flood)

Somewhere along the lines of this. This depends on the amount of lines displayed and the number of users triggering it at once. Combined this might cause the ircd to terminate your connection rather than handle it by throttling your messages as some servers do. This may/or may not happen to you. I've just mentioned it so your fully aware of it.

Also, in combining it with incith:weather this depends on the amount of lines you've displayed combined with the amount of users doing !weather at once. If say, 3 people do !weather <this> at the same instant, and each request outputs, let's say 6 lines.. Well, in this case your bot will now run the risk of spewing 18 lines (3 users x 6 lines) in a row non-stop, under normal cirumstances eggdrops own queueing system would keep this from happening. But without it, your going to need to adjust your ignore times and flood settings to be able to keep your bot from getting killed all the time.

Post by **willyw** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:52 pm

speechles wrote: ...
But without it, your going to need to adjust your ignore times and flood settings to be able to keep your bot from getting killed all the time.

Reading between the lines... let me see if I've got this right, when I say:
The simplest, safest, easiest thing to do, would be to be happy with the improved, faster display of the first five lines, by using "putquick", and let the last 6 lines be handled by eggdrop - thus avoiding flooding problems with the IRC server.

Does that sum it up accurately?

incith · Post by **incith** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:10 pm

you can test this on your own client for example.. try spamming 10 - 12 lines in a row really fast (uparrow + enter), and perhaps watch the output on another IRC client. You may get disconnected from the server, or, your output will start getting queued. I don't think it's really something that can be avoided.

Post by **willyw** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:35 pm

incith wrote:you can test this on your own client for example.. try spamming 10 - 12 lines in a row really fast (uparrow + enter), and perhaps watch the output on another IRC client. You may get disconnected from the server, or, your output will start getting queued. I don't think it's really something that can be avoided.

This is interesting, because we tried something almost like this already today - after reading the comments above, about flooding etc.

Loaded eggdrop - a test bot.

Two of us joined the channel with that bot.
We co-ordinated and using up arrow quickly sent !weather requests to the bot. The incith weather script for this test DID include the putnow procedure.

Come to think of it, according to what you've said here, either one of us might have gotten ourselves knocked off, for sending all those !weather lines? I remember that for one test, I sent 18 as fast as I could.
I think my friend sent a dozen or so himself.
Neither of us got knocked off the server though.

We wanted to see what the bot would do, and if it would get itself knocked off.
It did not. It took a while to send back all the replies though!

I've no idea why they didn't come back faster....

Further, we tested next by using /msg to the bot.
This time, the bot eventually ignored us.
That's when I remembered this setting in the script:
variable flood 4:10
and now I wonder why that didn't kick in when we hit it with all those requests via post in the channel?

Anyway... we did not get either ourselves, or the bot, kicked off.
From what you've described, it sounds like we should have.
What do you make of it?

incith · Post by **incith** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:05 pm

You are probably +f on the bot; but I agree somewhere in there is a bug, not sure why it happened on /msg.

Basically for the test I mean, have your friend send the 12 or whatnot !weathers, and just watch him, he should start lagging to you in the same way the bot does, after his first 5 or so !weathers sent to the channel, they should start getting queued a bit by his client, theoretically.

Post by **willyw** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:45 am

incith wrote:... not sure why it happened on /msg.

I'm a little confused then...
Isn't it supposed to?
Start ignoring requests, as per the configured numbers?

Basically for the test I mean, have your friend send the 12 or whatnot !weathers, and just watch him, he should start lagging to you in the same way the bot does, after his first 5 or so !weathers sent to the channel, they should start getting queued a bit by his client, theoretically.

I wasn't really watching him that time.. but we'll do it again and see.
Thanks.

digs · Post by **digs** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:49 pm

I was wondering if this is an error with their site, or maybe they changed things again?

I have been getting
"The operation timed out after 15 seconds."

The messages are irradic.

holycrap · Post by **holycrap** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:55 pm

I'm getting the same thing.

incith · Post by **incith** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:22 am

They (wunderground) is lagging. Nothing I can do about it. Just need to wait for them to figure/sort it out.