I don't know what it would take to run the transmit in parallel. In some
cases a response comes back from one of the servers, as mentioned in the
comments:
/*
* Even though this is the "sendtomany" routine, we need to decide
if the
* request should go to all servers, or just a single server. The
default
* is to send to all servers - but commands that trigger a response
can
* only go to a single server.
• * "schedule" is special - when scheduling an action there is no
response, but
* when it is the blank "schedule" command there will be a
response. So a
* schedule action goes to all Xymon servers, the blank "schedule"
goes to a single
* server.
*/
Perhaps the feature request should be: try each server once, then move on
to the next. Take out of the list any server that responds. Run through
the list N times as long as there are servers still in the list.
Ralph Mitchell
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Roland Soderstrom <
user-0cec9512a49f@xymon.invalid> wrote:
Well spotted Ralph, Thanks a lot.****
But the code seems to miss something here.****
Shouldn’t it send to both servers at the same time? Regardless of the
other being up or not?****
Is there any reason to wait for the first server to answer before sending
to the next?****
And even so, the time from the client should be when it is sending not
when the sending process starts.****
** **
I really like this feature as it gives me a very cheap and easy “xymon
cluster”.****
I discovered this when one of my xymon servers died on me last week.****
I just had to change the http port to see the “backup server” instead.****
** **
Feature request?****
** **
At least we know what is happening and why.****
** **
-Roland****
** **
*From:* Ralph Mitchell [mailto:user-00a5e44c48c0@xymon.invalid]
*Sent:* Monday, 27 May 2013 4:49 PM
*To:* Roland Soderstrom
*Cc:* xymon at xymon.com
*Subject:* Re: [Xymon] XYMONSERVERS bug****
** **
I just looked at the code (xymon-4.3.10) - the xymon client program has a
default timeout of 15 seconds, and retries twice. That's 45 of the 47
seconds delay you're seeing before it tries the second server.****
** **
To answer your original question, yes, that would seem to be the expected
behaviour... :-)****
** **
Ralph Mitchell****
** **