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.
Universität 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 : tkorthals at cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
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.
>> Universität 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 : tkorthals at cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>> 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.
>>>> Universität 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 :tkorthals at cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de
>>>> Internet:http://www.ks.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Spread-users mailing list
>>>> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
>>>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spread-users mailing list
>> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>>