Re: Connecting spread daemons with different segment configurations

Good point Ed.

What I propose has an advantage still if we are highly interested to avoid
connectivity effects of server 2 from affecting server 3
in the case of a flaky wireless network where server 2 and server 3 frequen=
tly disconnect from the network.

If the network if relatively stable, the solution you propose of just using=
 different groups
with a single configuration of all three daemons is better of course and I =
stay corrected.

Best,

	:) Yair.

On 1/29/15 7:44 AM, Ed Holyat wrote:
> Seems to me you're trying to segment the network through daemon configura=
tion when you should me segmenting the network through group membership
>
>
>> On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Yair Amir <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure what you are trying to achieve.
>> But if clients on 2 are not allowed to talk with clients on 3,
>> then perhaps what you are after can be solved with 2 Spread configuratio=
ns
>> with 2 different daemons running on server 1 (on two different ports).
>>
>> This way, clients on server 1 can just connect to the 2 daemons on serve=
r 1
>> and join the same groups on both.
>>
>> Clients on each of server 2 and server 3 will connect to their local
>> daemon and then will never be able to see clients on the other server (o=
f 2 and 3).
>>
>> How about that?
>>
>>     :) Yair.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1/29/15 7:25 AM, Timo Korthals wrote:
>>> Hi Yair,
>>>
>>> thanks for the answer, but I think that your case does not meet my
>>> requirements if I understand your setup in the right way.
>>> If there is just one daemon on 1. running, the spread clients on 2. and
>>> 3. are able to talk to each other.
>>> The other point why I want to use this multi daemon setup, is that the
>>> daemons on 2. and 3. can handle the breakaway of the connection in a
>>> wifi scenario with bad quality.
>>> In your case the clients needs to handle faulty connections on their ow=
n.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Timo
>>>
>>>
>>> Timo Korthals, M.Sc.
>>> Universit=E4t Bielefeld
>>> AG Kognitronik & Sensorik
>>> Exzellenzcluster Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>>> Inspiration 1 (Zehlendorfer Damm 199)
>>> 33619 Bielefeld - Germany
>>>
>>> Office  : 3.037
>>> Phone   : +49 521 106-67368
>>> eMail   : [email protected]
>>> Internet: http://www.ks.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/
>>>
>>>> On 29.01.2015 13:06, Yair Amir wrote:
>>>> Dear Timo,
>>>>
>>>> To implement your scenario, what you want is to just have a single
>>>> Spread daemon in your
>>>> configuration - just have server 1.
>>>>
>>>> The other two should just connect as clients. This seems exactly what
>>>> you want.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you think I misunderstood something.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>      :) Yair.
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/29/15 5:20 AM, Timo Korthals wrote:
>>>>> Dear Spread users,
>>>>>
>>>>> we are using spread daemons for our distributed robot network.
>>>>> We know already, that each device needs exact the same configuration
>>>>> regarding the segments, otherwise the spread daemons wont connect to
>>>>> each other.
>>>>> But is there a way to not have the same segment configurations?
>>>>> So lets assume the following scenario of three participants {1,2,3}.
>>>>>
>>>>> *1. is a server, which knows the participants 2 and 3*
>>>>> /spreadOne.conf:/
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           one               192.168.0.1
>>>>> }
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           two               192.168.0.2
>>>>> }
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           three               192.168.0.3
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *2. and 3. are just clients, which are allowed to talk with the
>>>>> server, but not with each other*
>>>>> /spreadTwo.conf:/
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           one               192.168.0.1
>>>>> }
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           two               192.168.0.2
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> /spreadThree.conf:/
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           one               192.168.0.1
>>>>> }
>>>>> Spread_Segment  192.168.0.255:4803 {
>>>>>           three               192.168.0.3
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously this does not work with spread, am I right?
>>>>> But if so, how can I make it work?
>>>>> Is spread just comparing the hashes of the configs, and refusing
>>>>> connections, if hashes mismatch?
>>>>> What happens if I remove the checks regarding the configuration check?
>>>>> Has anyone done this before?
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Timo
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Timo Korthals, M.Sc.
>>>>> Universit=E4t Bielefeld
>>>>> AG Kognitronik & Sensorik
>>>>> Exzellenzcluster Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)
>>>>> Inspiration 1 (Zehlendorfer Damm 199)
>>>>> 33619 Bielefeld - Germany
>>>>>
>>>>> Office  : 3.037
>>>>> Phone   : +49 521 106-67368
>>>>> eMail   :[email protected]
>>>>> Internet:http://www.ks.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Spread-users mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spread-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spread-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spread-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>