Re: Connecting spread daemons with different segment configurations

Timo Korthals <[email protected]> Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:02:42 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.network.spread.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Hi Yair, hi Ed,

this membership setup seems nice.
But Yair, what du you mean with "relatively" stable?
In fact, we have a high unstable wifi network, so it seems to me that =

membershipping is not a good solution?

Greetings,
Timo


On 29.01.2015 13:54, Yair Amir wrote:
> 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 frequ=
ently disconnect from the network.
>
> If the network if relatively stable, the solution you propose of just usi=
ng 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 configur=
ation 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 configurati=
ons
>>> 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 serv=
er 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 o=
wn.
>>>>
>>>> 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 chec=
k?
>>>>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Spread-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users