[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[LDM #BIG-900661]: Terminated obsolete upstream
- Subject: [LDM #BIG-900661]: Terminated obsolete upstream
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:52:58 -0600
Brice,
> May have some good news and I do have an additional question, now that I
> 'think' I have a better understanding. I got Richard to change his ldmd.conf
> requests so that they were mirror images of each other on the two clients and
> had him restart his LDM sessions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mirror images of each other on the two clients".
Please elucidate.
> I could see in the logs that the two clients made connections through the
> tunnel and that the requests were reversed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the requests were reversed". Please elucidate.
> So far I have not seen the obsolete termination messages. I am going to
> continue to monitor the logs today.
That's good news!
> So with this potential success, I have a question. As I add additional
> external customers to this tunneling scenario it is going to become
> increasingly difficult to make sure that the arrangements of their requests
> are different. So I had a thought (painful and dangerous that is). Could I
> add a different bogus pattern to each of the requests that would make them
> sufficiently different to still work? For instance, if I assigned each
> client a designator that would indicate the client, I should have both a
> different pattern and a quick look at who is being fed. As an example,
> Richard is running servers, Sun and Moon, if he changed his pattern:
>
> Sun client: request FT4 "Sun|^WT.* " 134.xxx.xxx.aaa
> Moon client: request FT4 "Moon|^WT.* " 134.xxx.xxx.aaa,
>
> then LDM should see those as different patterns and let them through.
> Because I know there will never be any 'Sun' or 'Moon' patterns in our data,
> I am thinking this would work. Your thoughts? We plan on testing it later
> today or tomorrow if things look good with the current configurations. Might
> be a useful thing to suggest to folks behind NAT's too.
Interesting idea! I see no reason why it shouldn't work -- as long as you can
guarantee that, for example, the strings "Sun" and "Moon" will never, ever
appear *anywhere* in the product-identifiers. The matching would probably be
quicker and less risky for the patterns "^Sun|^WT" and "^Moon|^WT", which, by
the way, are equivalent to "^(Sun|WT)" and "^(Moon|WT)".
> Thanks again for everything you folks do with LDM. We couldn't live without
> it.
Oh, I'm sure you'd find something else. :-)
> Just for your information, it is going to become the standard streaming data
> communication protocol between the NASA centers doing spaceflight support
> (JSC, KSC and MSFC), and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station weather system.
Yikes! Just what I need: more support emails! :-)
Seriously, we're honored.
You know about our training workshops, right? We also visit for on-site
training.
> Brice
>
> Brice Biggerstaff, CISSP
> Johnson Space Center
> Weather Decision Support System
> MIDDS Software Support Lead
> 281-853-3011 (w)
> 713-764-2601 (p)
> address@hidden (alpha pager for text and email)
>
> Res Confacti Erimus
> “We Get Things Done!”
Regards,
Steve Emmerson
Ticket Details
===================
Ticket ID: BIG-900661
Department: Support LDM
Priority: Normal
Status: Closed