[Spread-users] Configuration file answer

Yair Amir yairamir at cnds.jhu.edu
Fri Apr 4 12:04:52 EST 2003


Hi Aswin,

I am not sure what is your question.
To me, the segment definition in your example below seems incorrect.
You should not include 127.0.0.1 in a spread configuration file unless
the configuration file includes exactly one segment with exactly one
machine.

Having said that, I don't think this relates in any way to the problem
you have with partitioning.

        Cheers,

        :) Yair.
        
On Friday, April 04, 2003 11:35 AM
Aswin Almeida aalmeida at bbn.com wrote:

Aswin> Yair,

Aswin> The reason I ask is because we have this working in lab tests and during 
Aswin> experiment runs.

Aswin> In fact, our experiment tool dynamically creates the spread.conf files and 
Aswin> segments on a per enclave basis (only including machines that are 
Aswin> involved).  I was curious if this might cause any side effects.

Aswin> Example:

Aswin> Spread_Segment  192.168.3.255:4803 {
Aswin>          localhost       127.0.0.1
Aswin>          cam100  192.168.3.100
Aswin>          cam101  192.168.3.101
Aswin> }
Aswin> Spread_Segment  192.168.5.255:4803 {
Aswin>          localhost       127.0.0.1
Aswin>          afrl3   192.168.5.3
Aswin>          afrl4   192.168.5.4
Aswin> }

Aswin> The partitioning issue that we are seeing is *not* confined to just the TIC 
Aswin> and its outbound links.  It occurs with other sites, even when the claimed 
Aswin> loss rate from "s" and "r" is 5-7%.  This suggests that the problem is 
Aswin> either with the network itself (a possibility, as one does not control the 
Aswin> public links we are relying on for the VPN) or we'd still be able to tweak 
Aswin> something within Spread (the application itself).

Aswin> See Sara's reply (previously) for details.

Aswin> Regards,

Aswin> Aswin

Aswin> At 07:45 AM 04/03/2003 -0500, Yair Amir wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>This configuration should not work. Take out the 127.0.0.1 from the
>>segment.
>>
>>         Cheers,
>>
>>         :) Yair.
>>
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > One follow up question to this:
>> >
>> > Is there anything wrong with specifying a localhost entry for a Spread
>> > Segment that defines a.b.c.255?
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> > Spread_Segment x.2.2.255 {
>> >         localhost           127.0.0.1    <---
>> >         other1               128.2.2.10
>> >         other2               128.2.2.11
>> > }
>> >
>> > -Aswin
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Spread-users mailing list
>>Spread-users at lists.spread.org
>>http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users


Aswin> _______________________________________________
Aswin> Spread-users mailing list
Aswin> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
Aswin> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users





More information about the Spread-users mailing list