[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 20030703: Two quick questions!

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Tom Yoksas wrote:

> Hi Gilbert,
> Correct.  LDM-6 does not accumulate feed requests to upstream hosts
> into single rpc.ldmds like LDM-5 did.  This makes the job of splitting
> feed requests as simple as making multiple lines in one's ldmd.conf
> file.  It also, however, places the onus on the requesting user to try
> and put as many feeds in a single request line as makes sense.  For
> instance, the following two request lines in most circumstances would
> be better made as one:
> request       UNIWISC ".*"    upstream.feed.host
> request       FSL2    ".*"    upstream.feed.host
> is better done as:
> request       UNIWISC|FSL2    ".*"    upstream.feed.host

I notice all of my downstream sites haven't done this. If you'd be so kind 
to do this, please do so when convenient. That will increase the 
throughput and speed on my machine. Thanks!
> The reason is that there will be one rpc.ldmd running on your client
> AND only one rpc.ldmd running on the server.

> >2. Now that most folks are on 6.0.13, how does the topology data losses 
> >look after the switchover? Better and by how much?
> The improvement in data delivery when both the client and server LDM
> are both version 6 is dramatic.  Quantifying how much better this is
> can not be done accurately for the entire IDD due to various
> complexities.

OK. Individual examples also show this. Routes from me to College of 
DuPage to UIUC get bogged down some afternoons, and I have noticed delays 
as a result of the LDM 6 upgrade have narrowed to a minute or less. Ditto 
for heavily loaded machines; they now spit out data much more quickly 
than before.

> >Personally, I am very impressed with LDM 6.0.13. Rock stable with RedHat 
> >Linux 9.0, all patches applied.
> Thanks for the kudos.  All of the UPC folks involved with LDM
> development and support really do appreciate positive feedback from
> time to time.

You are welcome...it is well deserved. I suspect my data loss was due to 
violent weather around here. Rockford, IL got slammed big time early 
Saturday morning (July 5, 2003 for the archive records!). See wtvo.com.
WIFR-TV (CBS from Rockford, www.wifr.com) lost their tower due to the 
derecho that went through the area last night. We're expecting another 
early Monday.

Gilbert Sebenste                                                     ********
Internet: address@hidden    (My opinions only!)                     ******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University                      ****
E-mail: address@hidden                                 ***
web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu                                      **
Work phone: 815-753-5492                                                *