Re: NT Broadcaster problems
Rob Butler <[email protected]> Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:02:52 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-backhand.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Theo, have there been any changes to the broadcast data structure in newer version of Backhand? If so the NT Backhand Broadcaster code would need to be updated to include the changes. Other than that make sure your settings in the registry for NT BHB are correct. It looks like the broadcast data structure after the IP address is having a problem. This could be because a required piece of data is missing in the registry or if the backhand data structure changed, and the change was not duplicated to NT BHB. Let's wait for a message from Theo confirming if there were / were not changes to the broadcast data structure, and meanwhile you can double check your settings. If neither of those two yeild any results I can take a look at the NTBHB code -- it's been a while... Later Rob > > We have just set up NT Backhand Broadcaster on 4 XP machines > > We have two SuSE Linux machines running Apache 1.3.28 and mod_backhand 1.2.2 > which are correctly working. > > When the status page is accessed (http://localhost/backhand/) the stats that > are returned from the 2 Linux machines are correct, but the stats which are > returned from the XP machines look garbled. > The hostname and age appear correct. > The IP address is correct but the port is listed as 0 not 80 > Total Mem is listed as 1MB; Avail Mem is listed as 1073201152 MB. > Arriba is 0; #CPUs is 1000; Load/HWM is 0.000/0 and CPU Idle is 0.000 > > Checking the registry settings on the XP machines everything looks good - > the Arriba score is 673266000. > > > Backhanding is working between the two linux boxes but it never goes to the > XP machines. Instead an apache Internal Server Error is received. Checking > the apache error log an entry of "Request exceeding the limit of internal > redirects" is listed. > > Is this anything to do with the NT Backhand stats being garbled - ie. a port > of 0 meaning the server cannot proxy? > > Using HTTPRedirectByName works; HTTPRedirectByIP fails (I assume again due > to the port number) > > Any ideas would be greatly received > > Neil Dawkins > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > ________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > backhand-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.backhand.org/mailman/listinfo/backhand-users >