Re: Connecting spread daemons with different segment configurations
John Lane Schultz <[email protected]> Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:28:11 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.spread.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> So as a conclusion, we can say that it is not possible to have different = configurations for connected spread daemons, am I right? Yes, that is correct. Spread assumes that all daemons in a configuration c= an directly talk to one another through their IP addresses. = If you violate that assumption you get undefined behavior =97 the system ma= y work normally most of the time, with degraded performance some of the tim= e, or not function at all depending on the communication patterns it attemp= ts to use and what the underlying network actually supports. Cheers! ----- John Lane Schultz Spread Concepts LLC Cell: 443 838 2200 On Jan 29, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Timo Korthals <[email protected]= .de> wrote: Hi Yair, your proposed solution with two daemons on 1. is already working. That was my first try to achive such a setup. I just wanted to know, if there is a more elegant way to achive this = kind of communication with just one daemon running on 1. So as a conclusion, we can say that it is not possible to have different = configurations for connected spread daemons, am I right? 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/ On 29.01.2015 13:39, Yair Amir 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 = > configurations > 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 = > server 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 = > (of 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 = >> own. >> = >> 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