Support

Support Options

Submit a Support Ticket

 
You are here: Home » Tools & Resources » Tools » PEN 2.4 » Reviews

PEN 2.4

By Lily Dong, Ian Mathew1, Gregory P Rodgers1

1. Purdue University

Project Explorer for NEES. Use this tool to manage(upload/download) files for a NEES project. Please read the new PEN Quick Start Guide.

Launch Tool

You must login before you can run this tool.

Version 2.4.3 - published on 14 May 2014

Open source: license | download

View All Supporting Documents

See also

No results found.

Reviews

Write a review

  1. 0 Like 0 Dislike

    Nick Trombetta

    1.0 out of 5 stars

    Edit Reply Report abuse

    Please login to vote.

    1. Gregory P Rodgers

      Hello Nick, Your last review was July and you left us lots of room for improvement. We have been working on tickets and wishes. There have been many releases of PEN since July. Can you review this again based on release 1.4.6. Please let us know which platform you run PEN on when you review. Windows, MacOS, Linux, or inside the HUB? Thank you.

      Reply Report abuse

      Please login to vote.

  2. 0 Like 0 Dislike

    Donald Patterson

    4.0 out of 5 stars

    While I checkmarked the “Very Good” rating for this application, I want to explain this rating. I think the concept is “Excellent” and the current state of development (capability, bugginess, actual usefulness) is “Good”. So I use the average as the overall rating. I love the concept of the project existing in local and remote copies. I think that having the whole project structure local (without the burden of having the whole of the tens or hundreds, or maybe even thousands of gigabytes of data local, too) will greatly facilitate the appropriate updating and annotation by researchers. Making that task easier is a big win-win situation for all involved. The current release of PEN does a pretty decent job handling these local and remote copies and occassionally synchronizing the copies (or subtrees of the copies). This is the aspect that I consider Excellent in concept. The second thing I very much liked about this tool is the improved capability in uploading data compared with the NEES Central web-based upload process. The old method allowd a maximum of 2-GB to be specified at a time. So to upload 80 GB, one had to be pretty active with specifying a set of files (totsl size to fit within the 2-GB limit), start the process, realize it completed and specify the next batch. With PEN I outline all 80 GB into subfolders under the standard repetition data folders. Then I can say “Upload” and the system will churn for hours uploading that whole set of files. PEN is fresh out of development, just starting its life as a production tool. Many things are missing. This causes me to chip away and deduct points from my rating. Some of this may be related to the old “NEES Central” versus the new “Project Warehouse”. So it may be unfair to blame PEN for some of these missing capabilities. Or, in learning a new tool, quite possibly I have overlooked some capabilities and it actually may do what I claim is missing (that is, I failed to figure out how to do it). In any case, the big omissions that leap out at me are these: – PEN provides for only a fraction of the metadata that was available in NEES Central. Some of those metadata enabled the use of descriptive labels for experiments and trials which I thought to be an improvement over the generic “Experiment-1” and “Trial-2” labels. – PEN does not provide for “Simulation” and the recently added “Hybrid Simulation” structures available in NEES Central. – PEN does not provide a “Delete” function. We look forward to continued improvement and development of PEN and I am sure that we will see many of these issues addressed. 2010-Sep-28 —- Don P

    Edit Reply Report abuse

    Please login to vote.