From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE103201AF6 for ; Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wejx9 with SMTP id x9so3461306wej.16 for ; Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=REiVK17KGVfTI3+WRURIc24FfP8ikCb8L1z/3WjWucc=; b=Z8C5Mdw/CPvC6HTWOy5AyJCkekzcqx18Ey5smrBJD7lI6SmRe97pSmEJGLQJrwJYet 9+0u8mRa/EMJAchivURhWvEvs3hmB7oFnqAVZOZhyFvqglEokBO8j+n385THsOBGSj4a z1VWJnELWStmBkQiuZWsVG2P8WClFDLuHTGI1wzGhO0gCsqTlXajSPM/hWacT+Nmz5MU NtbOeFym7D4btUy4n3JpTYEBN21a+2vib4xfDgjaKjhGvPBejhXrildDPrVGZBD1/mUc KHhnD/vt0vkI7EOtdsMCW4xl4/PUAcJ/JAUdOryTKQ/REExESmwKZue+HNkq/38dCP61 mhMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=REiVK17KGVfTI3+WRURIc24FfP8ikCb8L1z/3WjWucc=; b=KK2T4e8SHJxJHk9AnFUi+DseKxRabBaqDwdzneZrkVKTNnxXi3HQ0pHgTrYip9YQju 2isB1IlpmePUURD42lFrNF5pobtav6f79BNHmJWSDOJNsYKfSWKNmwbUlob4JnCIBmB9 erK+QqDUotkdQHxhvcnWLxbZ1F7Rkppp+4rb7kfcQt0/gqaQg8bdoMOOYx1NtaD3zjfs GeC9lYWzFaprYf3fBCCMsEUzS2eltKHxNxWXDpNRyLUPoVAbBPb5i9HU2SrjHum1mYPh Oaxs36tCLvXOfNdpoLVU3XEKvjCAzf6tsQYH+rkbnKy215u4mlaZnArXtfF/8++23UrJ +Rew== Received: by 10.181.11.137 with SMTP id ei9mr11346307wid.21.1338164132488; Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.181.11.137 with SMTP id ei9mr11346292wid.21.1338164132313; Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.14.231 with HTTP; Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3B65E5C5-4E4D-482F-88CC-14D4F0EB5015@cisco.com> References: <20120527032502.EBB73800037@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> <3B65E5C5-4E4D-482F-88CC-14D4F0EB5015@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 17:15:32 -0700 Message-ID: From: Matt Mathis To: Fred Baker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043892d7c1fbf204c10d9d4b X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmYf7ZX6sqmP63lNaqJOFaWdm08IpBhhRQ52FcgHh89WmGxZEL2ozX6jF4XwlIBwpN6LvJedr2rwptNCOfaacuyMOSKOeax5JBs8c0B5iVp1UOb7qbCB6mdbpCMdnA1IXVf+7mdJuHjI/KpZtkwLKcexodCA== Cc: dews@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Dews] USGS: ShakeAlert X-BeenThere: dews@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 00:15:36 -0000 --f46d043892d7c1fbf204c10d9d4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think the exercise at this point is just discovering all of the existing related work: CAPs wasn't even on my radar. I agree that there is no point in duplicating any of that effort here. But my sense from the very beginning is that the distributed sensors are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of system cost and/or barriers to deployment. And although there is a certain elegance to fully distributed solutions, I don't have much faith in multi-ISP multicast being sufficiently robust at the ~100 km range needed for DEWS. (Actually, any one ISP for that matter). OTOH, I know some people who run some data centers, ship a few browsers and a few phones. (BTW, As long as the epicenter is more than ~100 km from the data center, it will survive long enough.) This idea is a whole lot bigger than my role, but perhaps I can draw the interest of the right people. It is probably the case that the "right answer" is multiple DEWS systems using different technologies, on the assumption that some will fail. Thanks, --MM-- The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > I'm very very confused. The discussion on the bufferbloat list was about > how to get a message from a system containing a cheap accelerometer - a CPE > Router or a set-top box - to someone that wanted to receive them from > zillions of sources. It seems to be morphing into a discussion of the > Common Alerting Protocol ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Alerting_Protocol) or something like > it to distribute alerts. > > Please pick one. If it's the CAP discussion, there is a lot of work going > on and we don't need another place to comment on it; drop me off. > > On May 26, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Hal Murray wrote: > > > > > In Apr, 2012, the monthly public lecture at the USGS Menlo Park campus > > described their work in this area: > > > > ShakeAlert! > > --building an earthquake early warning system for California > > by Doug Given, USGS Earthquake Early Warning Coordinator > > * Millions of Japanese citizens received advance warning of the 2011 > > magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake -- can such a system be built for use in > > California? > > * University researchers and government agencies are working together > to > > create an Earthquake Early Warning system in California to reduce > earthquake > > losses > > * April is Earthquake Awareness Month in California -- how could you > and > > your family best prepare for severe ground shaking using 30 seconds of > > advance warning? > > > > The video of the talk is online. It's an hour and a half. > > http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/apr12.html > > > > It's pretty good. I think anybody interested in this topic should watch > it. > > If nothing else, it will give us a common reference. > > > > > > Numbers and such from my memory: > > > > P waves travel at 3 miles/second. S waves (the destructive ones) travel > at > > 2 miles/second. > > > > It takes about 10 seconds to verify that a quake exists and estimate how > > big it is. > > > > They think they can get a 20-30 second warning. That's for a big enough > > quake, and far enough away but not too far. If it isn't big, nobody > cares. > > If it's too far away nobody cares. If it's too close, you don't get > enough > > warning time to be useful. Quakes on the San Andreas Fault near Los > Angeles > > are likely to fit. (The USGS people doing the work are located in > Pasadena.) > > > > Half (or more) of the work is making contact with the people who want to > > know that a quake is coming. BART wants to stop their trains. (BART > trains > > can carry 1000 people.A serious wreck would overload the emergency > response > > system even without any other earthquake damage.) > > > > He had lots of info from Japan. They have a lot more/denser sensors > than we > > do. > > > > The USGS is looking for $50-100 million over 5 years to install more > sensors > > and $5-10 million/year for operations. > > > > -------- > > > > The Moore foundation gave $6 million to CalTech, Berkeley, and Univ of > > Washington for work in this area. > > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=3041 > > They are cooperating with the USGS. > > > > > > -- > > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dews mailing list > > Dews@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/dews > > _______________________________________________ > Dews mailing list > Dews@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/dews > --f46d043892d7c1fbf204c10d9d4b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the exercise at this point is just discovering all of the existing = related work: CAPs wasn't even on my radar. =A0I agree that there is no= point in duplicating any of that effort here.

But my se= nse from the very beginning is that the distributed sensors are only the ti= p of the=A0iceberg=A0in terms of system cost and/or barriers=A0to deploymen= t. =A0And although there is a=A0certain=A0elegance to fully=A0distributed s= olutions, I don't have much faith in multi-ISP multicast being sufficie= ntly robust at the ~100 km range needed=A0for DEWS. =A0(Actually, any one I= SP for that matter).

OTOH, I know some people who run some data centers, shi= p a few browsers and a few phones. =A0(BTW, As long as the epicenter is mor= e than ~100 km from the data center, it will survive long enough.) =A0This = idea is a whole lot bigger than my role, but perhaps I can draw the interes= t of the right people.

It is probably the case that the "right answer&quo= t; is multiple DEWS systems using different technologies, on the assumption= that some will fail.

Thanks,
--MM-= -
The best way to predict the future is to create it. =A0- Alan Kay



On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Fred B= aker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
I'm very very confused. The discussion on the bufferbloat list was abou= t how to get a message from a system containing a cheap accelerometer - a C= PE Router or a set-top box - to someone that wanted to receive them from zi= llions of sources. It seems to be morphing into a discussion of the Common = Alerting Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Alerting_Pr= otocol) or something like it to distribute alerts.

Please pick one. If it's the CAP discussion, there is a lot of work goi= ng on and we don't need another place to comment on it; drop me off.

On May 26, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Hal Murray wrote:

>
> In Apr, 2012, the monthly public lecture at the USGS Menlo Park campus=
> described their work in this area:
>
> ShakeAlert!
> --building an earthquake early warning system for California
> by Doug Given, USGS Earthquake Early Warning Coordinator
> =A0 * Millions of Japanese citizens received advance warning of the 20= 11
> magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake -- can such a system be built for use = in
> California?
> =A0 * University researchers and government agencies are working toget= her to
> create an Earthquake Early Warning system in California to reduce eart= hquake
> losses
> =A0 * April is Earthquake Awareness Month in California -- how could y= ou and
> your family best prepare for severe ground shaking using 30 seconds of=
> advance warning?
>
> The video of the talk is online. =A0It's an hour and a half.
> http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/apr12.html
>
> It's pretty good. =A0I think anybody interested in this topic shou= ld watch it.
> If nothing else, it will give us a common reference.
>
>
> Numbers and such from my memory:
>
> P waves travel at 3 miles/second. =A0S waves (the destructive ones) tr= avel at
> 2 miles/second.
>
> It takes about 10 seconds to verify that a quake exists and estimate h= ow
> big it is.
>
> They think they can get a 20-30 second warning. =A0That's for a bi= g enough
> quake, and far enough away but not too far. =A0If it isn't big, no= body cares.
> If it's too far away nobody cares. =A0If it's too close, you d= on't get enough
> warning time to be useful. =A0Quakes on the San Andreas Fault near Los= Angeles
> are likely to fit. =A0(The USGS people doing the work are located in P= asadena.)
>
> Half (or more) of the work is making contact with the people who want = to
> know that a quake is coming. =A0BART wants to stop their trains. =A0(B= ART trains
> can carry 1000 people.A serious wreck would overload the emergency res= ponse
> system even without any other earthquake damage.)
>
> He had lots of info from Japan. =A0They have a lot more/denser sensors= than we
> do.
>
> The USGS is looking for $50-100 million over 5 years to install more s= ensors
> and $5-10 million/year for operations.
>
> --------
>
> The Moore foundation gave $6 million to CalTech, Berkeley, and Univ of=
> Washington for work in this area.
> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article_pf.asp?ID=3D3041
> They are cooperating with the USGS.
>
>
> --
> These are my opinions. =A0I hate spam.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dews mailing list
> Dews@lists.bufferbloat.n= et
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/dews

_______________________________________________
Dews mailing list
Dews@lists.bufferbloat.net
h= ttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/dews

--f46d043892d7c1fbf204c10d9d4b--